Is there a name for believing but not obeying? Although it is a theoretical question, it is still very interesting for me.

Is there a system of beliefs or at least a name for people who believe in the existence of God and that events described in the Bible did take place, but refuse to obey God and his commandments?

I think the closest fit would appear to be Deism:

  Deism (i/ˈdiːɪzəm/ US dict: dē′·ĭzm) in the philosophy of religion is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is a creation and has a creator. Furthermore, the term often implies that this supreme being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") does not alter the universe by (regularly or ever) intervening in the affairs of human life. This idea is also known as the Clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own. Deists believe in the existence of a god without any reliance on revealed religion, religious authority or holy books. Two main forms of deism currently exist: classical deism and modern deism.

What I think the OP is asking for is a scholarly term to describe someone who believes that God exists, but denies that God is actively involved with his creation in any meaningful way.  Such a disinterested God would not issue any "rules" for his created beings to obey.  Further, such a person would deny that the Bible (or any religious text) is in any way a communication from God and would feel, therefore, no obligation to it's moral, ethical or sociopolitical code.

The definition of Deist seems to fit that rather well.


Where did the religious symbol of the 'halo' come from? I once read somewhere that the 'halo' was inherited by Christianity from ancient worshippers of the Sun.  However, although this seems believable I never bothered to verify its historic credibility - something I suppose would not be that difficult, one way or the other.

It does make me wonder though, 'Where does the halo originate, or similarly the lights behind the portraits of 'holy' men in art, etc'?

I am specifically wondering at what point in history and for what meaning was the 'halo' 'first' used by Christians and was it 'new' or 'borrowed from pagan practice'? I am not interested if it should, or should not be used.

First you should read The Wikipedia article on the halo to get a good idea of the use of the halo in the past. You will see that it was indeed used by the Romans and possibly the Greeks as well as in Asian art. Wikipedia states (without citation) that it was first used in Christian art around the 4th Century. Roman art in particular used the halo to indicate divine personages, and initial use on Christian art was restricted to Christ. Given Christianity's intimate association with the Roman Empire in the 1-3rd century it is unlikely that the use of the halo was independently invented by Christianity.

The next thing you should realize is that the halo is simply an artistic convention. Early art was much more 'representational' than modern art. It was not intended to imply that holy figures literally had a glow around their head. It simply indicated who in the picture were 'holy' or 'divine' characters. Because of this it makes no sense to read anything into Christian artists use of the convention - it's simply a way to convey meaning to the the viewers of the art. It would make no more sense to denegrate Christian art for using it than to condemn a Christian comic book-writer for using 'speech bubbles'.

The halo fell out of favour when art transitioned to more realistic conventions.


Christening - what exactly does a Godparent have to promise to do / be? I have been asked to be a godparent to my nephew.  However, I'm not a Christian.  In a Church of England ceremony, what exactly is asked of the godparents?

In the Church of England you need to be able to answer the questions asked of godparents truthfully and sincerely:

  Parents and godparents, the Church receives these children with joy.
  Today we are trusting God for their growth in faith.
  Will you pray for them,
  draw them by your example into the community of faith
  and walk with them in the way of Christ?
  With the help of God, we will.

  In baptism these children begin their journey in faith.
  You speak for them today.
  Will you care for them,
  and help them to take their place
  within the life and worship of Christ's Church?
  With the help of God, we will.

Those may not be too bad: even a non-Christian theist might pray for a child and help them take their place in the Church, and support them in their pilgrimage of faith.

The next set of questions might be more of a challenge to a non-Christian.

  Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?
  I reject them.

  Do you renounce the deceit and corruption of evil?
  I renounce them.

  Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour?
  I repent of them.

  Do you turn to Christ as Saviour?
  I turn to Christ.

  Do you submit to Christ as Lord?
  I submit to Christ.

  Do you come to Christ, the way, the truth and the life?
  I come to Christ.

  [Common Worship text]

In my [former] Church of England parish, a non-Christian would be advised to think seriously about whether he could sincerely answer these questions, and to consider whether he might do more service to the child’s faith by acknowledging how serious they are, by refusing the invitation in conscience.


Who is the most recent saint recognized by both the Catholic and the Orthodox churches? Both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches recognize certain individuals as saints—particularly holy individuals who are believed to be in Heaven.  The most famous saints become popular objects of veneration and are catalogued in extensive (but not exhaustive) official lists, such as the Roman Martyrology.

The two churches have not been in communion for nearly a thousand years, and at the time they separated, they did not use today's more rigorous canonization and glorification processes for officially recognizing saints.  Many ancient and medieval figures are recognized as saints by both churches today because of traditions that long predate the schism.

What I would like to know is, who is the most recently deceased individual who is officially recognized and venerated as a saint by both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches?  According to this answer, Vladimir the Great (956–1015) is one contender.  I'd be particularly interested to learn whether there are any mutually recognized saints from after the Great Schism of 1054.

I believe that the correct answer would be either Abraham of Rostov, who died between 1073 and 1077; or Antony (Anthony) of the Caves, who died in 1073.  Both appear in the list of Catholic saints, and both are venerated in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Abraham is known as Abraham the Wonderworker in the Orthodox Church, where he is remembered on October 29.  His life is described:

  Saint Abramius, Archimandrite of Rostov, in the world Abercius, left
  his parents’ home in his youth and entered upon the path of Christian
  asceticism. Having assumed the monastic schema, Abramius settled at
  Rostov on the shore of Lake Nero. In the Rostov lands there were not
  many pagans, and the saint worked intensely at spreading the true
  Faith.

  Not far from the cell of the saint was a pagan temple, where the
  pagans worshipped a stone idol of Veles (Volos), which caused fright
  among the inhabitants of Rostov. In a miraculous vision the Apostle
  John the Theologian stood before Abramius, and gave him a staff with a
  cross on top, with which the venerable one destroyed the idol. At the
  place of the pagan temple, St Abramius founded a monastery in honor of
  the Theophany and became its head.

  In memory of the miraculous appearance, the holy monk built a church
  named for St John the Theologian. Many of the pagans were persuaded
  and baptized by St Abramius. Particularly great was his influence with
  the children whom he taught the ability to read and write, instructing
  them in the law of God, and tonsured monastics from among them.

  Everyone who came to the monastery was accepted with love. The saint’s
  life was a constant work of prayer and toil for the benefit of the
  brethren: he chopped firewood for the oven, he laundered the monks’
  clothing and carried water for the kitchen. St Abramius reposed in old
  age and was buried in the church of the Theophany.

  His holy relics were uncovered in the time of Great Prince Vsevolod
  (1176-1212). In the year 1551, Tsar Ivan the Terrible, before his
  campaign against Kazan, made the rounds of holy places. At the
  Theophany-Abramiev monastery the monks showed him the staff with which
  St Abramius had destroyed the idol of Veles. The Tsar took the staff
  with him on the campaign, but the cross remained at the monastery. And
  returning again after the subjugation of the Khan, Ivan the Terrible
  gave orders to build a new stone church at the Abramiev monastery in
  honor of the Theophany, with four chapels, and he also supplied it
  with books and icons.

The life of Antony of the Caves is described:

  Saint Anthony of the Kiev Caves was born in the year 983 at Liubech,
  not far from Chernigov, and was named Antipas in Baptism. Possessing
  the fear of God from his youth, he desired to be clothed in the
  monastic schema. When he reached a mature age, he wandered until he
  arrived on Mt. Athos, burning with the desire to emulate the deeds of
  its holy inhabitants. Here he received monastic tonsure, and the young
  monk pleased God in every aspect of his spiritual struggles on the
  path of virtue. He particularly excelled in humility and obedience, so
  that all the monks rejoiced to see his holy life.

  The igumen saw in St Anthony the great future ascetic, and inspired by
  God, he sent him back to his native land, saying, “Anthony, it is time
  for you to guide others in holiness. Return to your own Russian land,
  and be an example for others. May the blessing of the Holy Mountain be
  with you.

  Returning to the land of Rus, Anthony began to make the rounds of the
  monasteries about Kiev, but nowhere did he find that strict life which
  had drawn him to Mt. Athos.

  Through the Providence of God, Anthony came to the hills of Kiev by
  the banks of the River Dniepr. The forested area near the village of
  Berestovo reminded him of his beloved Athos. There he found a cave
  which had been dug out by the Priest Hilarion, who later became
  Metropolitan of Kiev (October 21). Since he liked the spot, Anthony
  prayed with tears, “Lord, let the blessing of Mt. Athos be upon this
  spot, and strengthen me to remain here.” He began to struggle in
  prayer, fasting, vigil and physical labor. Every other day, or every
  third day, he would eat only dry bread and a little water. Sometimes
  he did not eat for a week. People began to come to the ascetic for his
  blessing and counsel, and some decided to remain with the saint.

  Among Anthony’s first disciples was St Nikon (March 23), who tonsured
  St Theodosius of the Caves (May 3) at the monastery in the year 1032.

  The virtuous life of St Anthony illumined the Russian land with the
  beauty of monasticism. St Anthony lovingly received those who yearned
  for the monastic life. After instructing them how to follow Christ, he
  asked St Nikon to tonsure them. When twelve disciples had gathered
  about St Anthony, the brethren dug a large cave and built a church and
  cells for the monks within it.

  After he appointed Abbot Barlaam to guide the brethren, St Anthony
  withdrew from the monastery. He dug a new cave for himself, then hid
  himself within it. There too, monks began to settle around him.
  Afterwards, the saint built a small wooden church in honor of the
  Dormition of the Mother of God over the Far Caves.

  At the insistence of Prince Izyaslav, the igumen Barlaam withdrew to
  the Dimitriev monastery. With the blessing of St Anthony and with the
  general agreement of the brethren, the meek and humble Theodosius was
  chosen as igumen. By this time, the number of brethren had already
  reached a hundred men. The Kiev Great Prince Izyaslav (+ 1078) gave
  the monks the hill on which the large church and cells were built,
  with a palisade all around. Thus, the renowned monastery over the
  caves was established. Describing this, the chronicler remarks that
  while many monasteries were built by emperors and nobles, they could
  not compare with those which are built with holy prayers and tears,
  and by fasting and vigil. Although St Anthony had no gold, he built a
  monastery which became the first spiritual center of Rus.

  For his holiness of life, God glorified St Anthony with the gift of
  clairvoyance and wonderworking. One example of this occurred during
  the construction of the Great Caves church. The Most Holy Theotokos
  Herself stood before him and St Theodosius in the Blachernae church in
  Constantinople, where they had been miraculously transported without
  leaving their own monastery. Actually, two angels appeared in
  Constantinople in their forms (See May 3, the account of the Kiev
  Caves Icon of the Most Holy Theotokos). Having received gold from the
  Mother of God, the saints commissioned master architects, who came
  from Constantinople to the Russian land on the command of the Queen of
  Heaven to build the church at the Monastery of the Caves. During this
  appearance, the Mother of God foretold the impending death of St
  Anthony, which occurred on July 10, 1073.


What does Catholic Church teach about the interpretation of the metaphor of "salt of the earth?" We see Jesus telling at Matthew 5:13 (NRSVCE):

"You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot."

My question is: what exactly is the significance which Jesus is attributing to the earth with reference to salt . Does he mean that the earth is the source of salt ; or does he mean that salt is really valuable - both as a taste-maker and as a preservative-- for  mankind which dwells on the earth? What do the teachings of Catholic say about the interpretation of the metaphor or "salt of the earth?"

St. Thomas Aquinas's commentary on Matthew 5:13 gives four reasons for why the Apostles can be compared to salt:

The first reason is on account of the production of salt, which comes from both the wind and the sun’s heat: for spiritual generation is from the water of Baptism and the power of the Holy Ghost; “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3, 5). And the production of salt comes from the heat of the sun, meaning from the fervor of love which is from the Holy Ghost; “The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost who is given to us” (Rom. 5, 5). Secondly, it is on account of the utilities of salt, of which the first is its use, that all things are seasoned with salt: hence, it signifies the wisdom which apostolic men ought to have; “The wisdom of doctrine is according to her name, and she is not manifest unto many, but with them to whom she is known, she continueth even to the sight of God” (Eccli. 6, 23), and, “Walk with wisdom towards them that are without, redeeming the time” (Col. 4, 5). The second use13 was that in every sacrifice salt was added (Lev. 2, 13),14 because apostolic teaching ought to be reflected in our every deed. The third use is that it absorbs excess moisture and by this preserves from putrefaction. In this way the Apostles were restraining carnal concupiscences by their teaching; “The time past is sufficient to have fulfilled the will of the Gentiles, for them who have walked in riotousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings and unlawful worshipping of idols” (I Pet. 4, 3), and, “Let us walk honestly, as in the day: not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and impurities, not in contention and envy” (Rom. 13, 13). The fourth effect of salt is that it makes the ground sterile. Hence, it is said that some conquerors oversowed salt outside a city which they captured so that nothing would grow. In like manner, also the Gospel teaching makes the ground sterile, namely, so that earthly works do not spring up in us; “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness: but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5, 11). Therefore, the Apostles are called salt because they have pungency for withdrawing from sins; “Have salt in you: and have peace among you” (Mk. 9, 49).
But someone could say, ‘It suffices that I have salt.’ But on the contrary, it is necessary that the power of salt keep you from sin, and for this He cites four reasons. The first is taken from its incorrigibility, and hence it is said, But if the salt lose its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? Those things properly lose their savor that lose their strength: just as strong wine sometimes loses its strength, so salt sometimes loses its pungency; “But if the salt become unsavoury, wherewith will you season it?” (Mk. 9, 49). Hence, one then loses his savor when he is guilty of sin; “They became vain in their thoughts. And their foolish heart was darkened” (Rom. 1, 21). If, therefore, on account of tribulations or some other reason you withdraw from virtue, in what shall you be salted, meaning in what other thing will you be salted with salt? For if the people sin they can be corrected, but if a prelate sins, no one can reform him; “How long will they be incapable of being cleansed?” (Os. 8, 5). And it ought to be observed that in Luke 14, 34, it is said: “But if the salt shall become tasteless (infatuatum)”:15 For it is great foolishness (fatuitas) to relinquish eternal things for temporal things.
The second reason is taken from its utility, hence, it is said: It is good for nothing, and He explains this in Luke 14, 35, where it is said: “Neither profitable for the land nor for the dunghill,” because it makes the land sterile and does not fertilize it. So spiritual men, when they sin, are able to do nothing, because they are not able to do secular business as soldiers or men of this kind are able to do; “Son of man, what shall be made of the wood of the vine…? Shall wood be taken of it, to do any work, or shall a pin be made of it for any vessel to hang thereon? Behold it is cast into the fire for fuel… shall it be useful for any work?” (Ez. 15, 2-4), and, “They are all gone aside, they are become unprofitable together” (Ps. 13, 3).
The third reason is taken from the imminent danger, and it has two branches according to two dangers. The first is expulsion, hence: but to be cast out, namely, from the Church; “Without are dogs and sorcerers and unchaste and murderers and servers of idols and every one that loveth and maketh a lie” (Apoc. 22, 15). Likewise, the dignity of priestly teaching is taken away from him; “Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not do the office of priesthood to me” (Osee 4, 6), and, “Therefore I say to you that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof” (below 21, 43), and so it is said, but to be cast out. The second danger is being made worthless, because they who firstly live supernaturally and fail, become contemptible, and so it is said: and to be trodden on by men; “This man began to build and was not able to finish” (Lk. 14, 30), and, “You have departed out of the way, and have caused many to stumble at the law: you have made void the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts. Therefore have I also made you contemptible, and base before all people, as you have not kept my ways” (Mal. 2, 8-9). And it ought to be observed, according to Augustine,16 that if some holy men are made worthless, as it is said above, “And they shall speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake” (5, 11), still they can never be trodden on, because they always have their hearts in heaven, and they are properly trodden on who lie on the earth.


What is the Biblical basis for an Old Earth? According to a comment by another user in this question Why do OEC discount the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis?, apparently there's Biblical evidence for an Old Earth. As a Young Earth/Literal Christian I have never been introduced to this theory before. Thus my question.

I have never come across any scripture that talks about the earth being old in a literal sense. Can you tell me what the literal evidence of Old Earth Creation is in the Bible?

There is a idea, known as Gap Theory, that says that the first few verses of Genesis should be translated as the following:

Genesis 1:1

  1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth [became]* without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

* Brackets denote what some believe is a more accurate translation of the word is.

This is due the the different translations for the Hebrew word "hayah". So, this understanding would indicate that there was an arbitrary amount of time between when God created the earth and when the rest of the creation story occurred.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert in Hebrew, so I cannot offer a more technical information this particular word. But here is Strong's Hebrew Lexicon definition:

  1961 hayah haw-yaw a primitive root (Compare 1933); to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):--beacon, X altogether, be(-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-)self, require, X use.

Here is the beginning of the second verse in Hebrew:

וְהָאָ֗רֶץ - ve·ha·'a·retz - the earth

הָיְתָ֥ה - ha·ye·tahm - was (or become)

תֹ֙הוּ֙ - to·hu - (formless)


How old is old earth creationism? The answers to What is the biblical evidence for an old Earth? say that biblical arguments for old Earth creationism are based on the ambiguous words used for describing lengths of time in Genesis.

Is there any record of biblical scholars addressing these ambiguities before modern science first began questioning the age of the Earth a few centuries ago, or did old Earth creationism appear later in an attempt to reconcile Genesis with the more recent scientific discoveries?

In other words, were these ambiguities unnoticed or ignored for over two thousand years?

Nobody in ancient times could have imagined that the earth was billions of years old, so you won't see any explicit attempts to reconcile the Genesis creation stories with an old earth. However, the early Christians did see discrepancies that made them question how literally the creation stories should be understood.

Second century Christian apologist Justin Martyr wrote in his Dialogue with Trypho, chapter LXXXI:

  For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject.

You can see already the seed of the notion that the "days" of Genesis 1 do not refer to 24-hour periods.

Third century scholar Origen of Alexandria went further in De Principiis IV.16 [emphasis mine]:

  For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that any one doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.

Even ancient scientists understood that "evening" and "morning" were meaningless without reference to the sun, moon, and stars; Origen interpreted Genesis in light of the scientific knowledge of his day, paving the way for later generations to reconcile faith and science.

The influential 5th century scholar Augustine of Hippo, in The City of God, 11.6, refused to speculate about what "day" meant in Genesis 1 [emphasis mine]:

  For that which is made in time is made both after and before some time,— after that which is past, before that which is future. But none could then be past, for there was no creature by whose movements its duration could be measured. But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!

In The Literal Meaning of Genesis (PDF), 1.19, Augustine gave advice for interpreting the Scriptures' statements about the physical world [emphasis mine]:

  Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

Lest he be misunderstood, Augustine continued [emphasis mine]:

  The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Later in the same book, Augustine laid out his hermeneutic for reading Genesis (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 2.9, no online link available, but quoted in Wikipedia, Allegorical interpretations of Genesis [emphasis mine]:

  With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

So although old earth creationism is a modern view, it draws (as does theistic evolution) on the ancient tradition of understanding Genesis in light of our current knowledge about the universe.


What role does hymnody play in non-Western churches? My wife and I were discussing the central role that congregational singing of hymns takes in Western churches, when it dawned on me that I don't real have a good understanding what its like outside of Roman Catholic and Western Protestant circles. I realized I just assumed everybody sang "Amazing Grace," "Tis So Sweet To Trust In Jesus," "Are you washed in the Blood," and all those "traditional Baptist hymns" I think about.  That's not something I could back up, however.

In a Baptist service, for instance, there will be several hymns (and usually one of them has to mention "the blood of Jesus"), that will generally precede the sermon, and almost always a "decision hymn" after the sermon and during the altar call, which the preacher typically uses to drive home the point of the message, and provide time for reflection. Often the theology of the hymns plays a fairly significant role in shaping the theology that parishioners really carry throughout the week

In an Episcopalian one, there are hymns sung during communion, but because the sermon itself comes so early in the order of worship, the songs with the richest theology tend to be the parts of the mass that are sung every week - the Sanctus, the Doxology, etc...

I'm curious to get an understanding of those churches I'm least familiar with:

LDS
Jehovah's Witness
Eastern Orthodox (totally different league)
and just a non-Western perspective altogether.

(Anybody outside the US - I really want to know - when do you sing hymns, and what types do you sing?)

Specifically, what is the role of congregationally sung music - is it used to drive home theological points, used primarily in ritual, or is it not present, in the denominations listed above?

Please feel free to characterize what role congregational singing takes in your churches, and what the purpose of these songs is.

DISCLAIMER: I am from the USA, but I happen to live in a part of the country that has over 20 Eastern Orthodox churches in a close radius, representing numerous nationalities and distinct ethnic expressions of the faith (for instance, we have multiple Romanian, Serbian and Greek Orthodox churches, and we also have Macedonian, Serbian, Ethiopian, Coptic (Egyptian), and American Orthodox churches).

Eastern Orthodox typically have chanting and sung liturgy, and also choirs - usually a capella but sometimes including simple instruments or a "church bell." You must understand that EVERYTHING centers on the Divine Liturgy in Orthodox worship. It is "the work of the people." The traditional expression concerning Orthodox liturgy is "Always everyone, always together." The OCA website says it well:

  "The Divine Liturgy is the common action of Orthodox Christians officially gathered to constitute the Orthodox Church. It is the action of the Church assembled by God in order to be together in one community to worship, to pray, to sing, to hear God’s Word, to be instructed in God’s commandments, to offer itself with thanksgiving in Christ to God the Father, and to have the living experience of God’s eternal kingdom through communion with the same Christ Who is present in his people by the Holy Spirit....

  Because the Divine Liturgy exists for no other reason than to be the official all-inclusive act of prayer, worship, teaching, and communion of the entire Church in heaven and on earth, it may not be considered merely as one devotion among many, not even the highest or the greatest. The Divine Liturgy is not an act of personal piety. It is not a prayer service. It is not merely one of the sacraments. The Divine Liturgy is the one common sacrament of the very being of the Church Itself. It is the one sacramental manifestation of the essence of the Church as the Community of God in heaven and on earth. It is the one unique sacramental revelation of the Church as the mystical Body and Bride of Christ."

It is important to understand this, because they do not have a "disconnected" view of worship. In other words, they do not view worship as a conglomeration of singing, reading, etc. It is all one Divine Liturgy. Worship is a participatory experience for all Orthodox Christians gathered. Orthodox tend to view Protestant worship as being a show; something that professional worshippers perform as a service for the people. This runs counter to Orthodox theology, where Divine Liturgy is the common work of the people "on behalf of all and for all." You must also understand that the building carries much significance (oblation and altar tables, icon screen, etc.) and this all ties into Orthodox theology. It seems that Protestant worship is disconnected from its theology. It is acceptable to sing songs with little theological content and preach on any chosen topic. Orthodox follow the Church calendar which prescribes what readings from scripture will occur and many aspects of liturgy will tie in to this "theme" or focus for each gathering. Everything in the service is united, and the Church calendar is designed to teach the entire Christian Orthodox faith to participants over time and then reinforce it. It globally unites Orthodox believers because they can go to a different Orthodox church across the world and they will pick up where they left off. I know that in many Protestant churches, even if you go to the same "denomination" down the street it may be a different message and scripture verse being taught. In Orthodox Christianity this is not so - thus the churches are truly united in belief and practice.

  "The living experience of the Christian sacramental and liturgical life is a primary source of Christian doctrine. In the liturgy of the Church, the Bible and the Holy Tradition come alive and are given to the living experience of the Christian people. Thus, through prayer and sacramental worship men are “taught by God” as it was predicted for the messianic age (Jn 6:45).

  In addition to the living experience of the liturgy, the texts of the services and sacraments provide a written source of doctrine in that they may be studied and contemplated by one who desires an understanding of Christian teachings. According to the common opinion of the Orthodox Church, the sacramental and liturgical texts—the hymns, blessings, prayers, symbols, and rituals—contain no formal errors or deformations of the Christian faith and can be trusted absolutely to reveal the genuine doctrine of the Orthodox Church." (OCA)

Concerning style, here is a source that says it well:

  "Eastern Christianity (the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches) have a very rich and ancient hymnographical tradition.

  Eastern chant is almost always a cappella, and instrumental accompaniment is rare. The central form of chant in the Eastern Orthodoxy is Byzantine Chant, which is used to chant all forms of liturgical worship. Exceptions include the Coptic Orthodox tradition which makes use of the sistrum, and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, which also uses drums, cymbals and other instruments on certain occasions."

The Orthodox Church has been reevaluating the role of music in worship as of late. One source says,

  "Russian Orthodox church music has its particularly unique development. Byzantine music remains basically monophonic (single-line unison singing). But part-singing appeared in Lvov and began to spread in Southern Russia and the Ukraine as early as the 15th Century. From this we can trace early experiments with harmonization, and in the 17th Century the influence of the Kievan schools of harmony on Moscow. Choirs of sorts began to be schooled in the Imperial Court, although they sang in small groups and were made up of male singers only.

  It was Peter the Great in the 18th Century who gave rise to the Imperial Chapel Choir. The movement to introduce Western European harmonization and the chorale style spread very quickly, initiating the new period of concert-like choir singing. Bortniansky, under the patronage of Catherine the Great, still remains the best example of the composer-conductors and their church choirs of the choral tradition.

  By the beginning of the 20th Century there was already a great interest among Church musicians to return to the traditional roots of the canonical chant systems. Kastalsky particularly stands out among them. While choral compositions and choir singing remain popular to this day, among serious students of Church music more and more is sacred singing looked upon as a discipline of liturgical theology rather than simply as a musical art.

  This is particularly so in America, as we accept the responsibility for an Orthodox inculturation of a new land, a new language and a new people. As we attempt to find our own style in response to new needs and situations (especially those of the small missions), above all we seek to be anchored to the great Tradition.

  This great Tradition, however, insists neither on a rigid formalism nor a return to a hypothetically more primitive practice. There is room in Orthodox culture for both choir singing and congregational participation, for ancient chants and familiar harmonized works, as well as perhaps for new adaptations based on the timbre of the English language, developed from the local materials of our own particular time and place. All of this is possible so long as none of it contradicts our ecclesial identity as the Orthodox Church."

I also found a video showing some 4th-century-style Orthodox worship in Africa. The video features the koboro drum and the sistrum. Here is another video with some chanting/singing like you might hear in an Orthodox church. The Russians have some beautiful chanting as well, listen here. It is heavenly. It should also be noted that Orthodox incorporates all the senses, not just hearing and seeing, but also smell, touch, and taste.

I know I quoted a lot of sources, but I felt they said things better than I could. I know the original question was related to hymnody, but I wanted to make it clear that hymnody is merely a part of the Divine Liturgy in Eastern Orthodox understanding - it is not a separate discipline but an integrated part of the whole. It is difficult to fully answer this question without first discussing all aspects of Worship in the Orthodox faith (of which Divine Liturgy is only one). The hymns tie into the greater Liturgy and worship experience, which are informed by Holy Tradition and centered on Christ, Who is our Song.


Has the Catholic Church endorsed the view of Einstein on the Creator? One of Albert Einstein's most famous quotes is, "God does not play dice with the universe."

I wish to know if the Catholic Church has ever used the said statement of Einstein in its teachings on creation, sustenance and end of the universe . If it has, has there been a disagreement between the scientist and the Church in relation to the interpretation of the statement ?

Catholicism believes in a personal God - a rational being who loves, creates as a voluntary act, and cares for His creation. Einstein found himself unable to believe in such a God:

  "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously."
  (letter quoted in  Hoffmann, Banesh: Albert Einstein Creator and Rebel. Cited in the Wikipedia article "Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein.)

When Einstein used the word "God" in the quote you cite, therefore, he seems to have meant something very different than what the Church means. So it would be surprising if the Church used the statement at all in any teaching.

That said, the Church certainly believes that God, in its use of the word, "does not play dice with the universe" - that is, he does not allow things to happen which are not beyond his ultimate control. The Church believes that all things occur subject to Divine Providence; they are all part of (or incorporated into) God's Divine Plan for the universe. Even physical events which seem random are part of what God wills for the universe:

  God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end.
  Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 301

Thus, although the Church rejects what Einstein said of God, in that it rejects his understanding of God, She still teaches something similar regarding God as He is in truth.


What are the stipulations for a mixed marriage to be valid in the Catholic Church? If a devout Catholic woman wants to marry a Baptist man, what what must be made to make the marriage valid to the Catholic Church if they have both gone though the Catholic wedding preparation but would like to be married in a non-catholic church? Would the Catholic Church consider such a marriage valid? I have heard that a special dispensation from the local bishop is necessary; How should that be acquired? If the marriage is valid, is it also allowed to baptize the children Catholic?

According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, mixed marriages (where one party is non-Catholic) require permission from the "local ordinary" or bishop (Can. 1124). The children must be baptized and raised Catholic, and the non-Catholic has to be okay with this (Can. 1125). They must have a Catholic wedding and cannot "have another religious celebration of the same marriage to give or renew matrimonial consent before or after the" Catholic wedding (Can. 1127 §3).

If a mixed marriage of doubtful validity already exists, you need to talk to a Catholic priest about convalidation or radical sanation.


Why was the gift of the Holy Ghost not operative during Christ's mortal ministry according to LDS doctrine? According to the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints the Holy Ghost was operative during the mortal ministry of Jesus Christ, but the gift of the Holy Ghost was not given until after Christ's resurrection (see John 7:39; 16:7; Acts 1:5; John 20:22).

On the other hand, the gift of the Holy Ghost was present in earlier dispensations, since it was required as part of the everlasting gospel.

My question is: Why was this gift withheld during Christs mortal ministry? In the LDS Bible Dictionary it states:

  For some reason not fully explained in the scriptures, the Holy Ghost did not operate in the fulness among the Jews during the years of Jesus’ mortal sojourn.

Are there any statements from latter day prophets explaining this though?

Note that the entry in the Bible Dictionary specifically states, "among the Jews" Implying that the Holy Ghost was operating in it's fulness elsewhere at that time. So why wasn't the comforter with the Jews during Christ's ministry? I've always been under the impression that it was because Christ himself was with the Jews instead.

Christ is the second comforter (see John 14:16-21). In Moroni Chapter 10, Moroni says that the gifts of God come from Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost and by the Spirit of Christ. In other words, the gifts come by the power of that Spirit who is the Holy Ghost, but the Spirit of Christ (or light of Christ) is the agency through which the Holy Ghost operates.1

While Christ was with the Jews, those gifts, normally given by the Holy Ghost, we given by Christ himself. It was only after his mortal ministry that there was a necessity for the Holy Ghost to return to the Jews in its fulness.

1 Mormon Doctrine: Gifts of the Spirit.


How does one explain God being outside the universe yet on the throne in heaven without violating divine simplicity? God created the universe. Therefore He transcends the universe. He is outside the universe.
Yet, He has a throne room in heaven:

Revelation 4:2 - Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne set in heaven, and One sat on the throne.

I told someone that God is outside the universe, but "part" of Him is in it.
I was told that violates divine simplicity, since God has no parts.
How does one explain God being outside the universe yet on the throne in heaven without violating divine simplicity?
Or is the premise wrong somehow?

There is no throne 'room' in scripture.
There is the concept of a throne given to us for our understanding.
Since God created all things, heavens (plural) and earth, he cannot be 'part' of that universal creation. God is Spirit.
Being Spirit, he is not 'located' anywhere (in three dimensions).

God is Spirit and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit - and in truth. [John 4:24 KJV]

God is manifested, in flesh, in Jesus Christ, I Timothy 3:16 [TR] [KJV] but it is not revealed where (physically) Jesus Christ is now (a cloud received him out of their sight).

And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. [Acts 1:9 , KJV]

The further Revelation of Jesus Christ is spiritual - it is not a physical revelation.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto him (see Revelation 1:1) is, quite clearly, conceptual - for the apprehension of faith - and is not to be understood in a physical way.


What is the source for Tertullian's "woman is a temple built over a sewer" quote? I've seen several different versions of this quotation, but the one constant is:

  Woman is a temple built over a sewer.

Other versions expand on this. Adding items such as

  Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil’s doorway. You should always go in mourning and in rags.

or

  Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil’s doorway. You led astray one whom the devil would not dare attack directly. It was your fault that the Son of God had to die; you should always go in mourning and rags.

But what is the original source? Putting the first quote in to Google reveals so many different versions that I'm beginning to doubt the existence of a primary source.

I have found a source (not of the highest quality) claiming that the quote is taken from a work of Tertullian called "De Cultu Feminarum". Unfortunately, the citations I've seen indicate that the quote is from the first volume of this two-volume work. My usual source for the Latin Church Fathers, Migné's Patrologia Latina, contains only the second volume. I haven't found an online copy of the first volume to verify with, but it does look like the quote may be at least properly ascribed.


Wave offering; What exactly was the point? In Leviticus 7 verse 30, This passage is written:

  30 With their own hands they are to present the food offering to the LORD; they are to bring the fat, together with the breast, and wave the breast before the LORD as a wave offering.

On this passage, did they really wave the sacrifice before offering it? and what exactly was the point in waving it?

From the other references to the same action (see here), it would appear that part of one (or more) of the sacrifices was to be held high and displayed before the gathered and before God that the offering was being made.

If you read further in the Leviticus passage, you get to this:

  but the breast shall belong to Aaron and his sons

As the breast was the portion "waved" before the Lord, it appears that it was to be a public showing of what had been brought, and after it had been consecrated it was to be given to the Aaronic priests for their use.


Did St. Paul ever claim prophethood? Much of Christianity is based on St. Paul's writings.  Did Saul of Tarsus ever claim to be a prophet of God anywhere in the new testament?

Paul did not explicitly claim to be a Prophet although there were occasions where he acted as one (cf. Acts 13 & Acts 27), however he did claim  to be personally called as an Apostle by the risen Christ Jesus.
The Apostles were specifically set apart by Jesus and given authority to teach and are generally considered by Christians to have either equivalent or greater authority to Prophets in regard to their writings:

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. Ephesians 2:19-20 NIV
And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. - 1 Corinthians 12:28 NIV


What did Pope Francis mean when he said "who am I to judge" homosexuals? It's approaching two years since this happened, but it seems relevant in light of recent events concerning homosexuality.

Speaking to reporters on his plane who had asked him about a "gay lobby" in the Vatican, Francis said, "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?"

Clearly the church judges their actions (whenever there are actions accompanying the desires). What exactly did he mean by "who am I to judge"?

Pope Francis means that those with same-sex attraction who refuse to act on their impulses for the sake of the Kingdom should not be judged. Those with heterosexual attraction often judge a homosexual attracted person based on his or her feelings he/she cannot control, even if the person doesn't act on them. Pope Francis is saying that we shouldn't condemn same-sex attraction, as it is not something a person can control. I would go so far as to say that Pope Francis implicitly means that we should show mercy and compassion to those who, through weakness, fell into the trap of acting on homosexual feelings.

What Pope Francis is NOT saying is that homosexuality as in the lifestyle, and in particular sodomy, should be condoned. He's also not saying that homosexual feelings are good; a person who has such feelings cannot sin for have such feelings, because they are out of his control, but the feelings are still a temptation and "disorder." People often get annoyed by the Church's use of "disordered," but most don't realize that, to the Church, a heterosexual sexual feeling aimed at someone who is not your spouse is disordered as well, but neither homosexual attraction or adultuous feelings are a sin in themselves unless a person entertain them and act on them (through sodomy or adultery respectively).

Basically, Pope Francis has in mind the ancient distinction between the will and the passions/emotions: we have free will, but our passions or emotions (which we have in common with other animals) are not entirely up to our control, due to our fallen nature (this war between the reason and the passions over the will is called concupiscience). As such, Pope Francis distingishes between homosexual actions (controlled by the will) and homosexual feelings (controlled by the passions), and points out that homosexual feelings alone cannot be a sin, period, and that a person who suffers from them cannot be blamed or thought of as "lesser" because he possesses the temptation: we all have our temptations.

Most importantly, we should pray that all who suffer from sexual temptations, whether they be hetersexual or homosexual, emerge victoriously over their temptations in the Kingdom of God.

Christi pax.


What does "therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves" mean? In Matthew 10:16 we read:

  I am sending you out like sheep among wolves.  Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. (NIV)

What does "be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves" mean?

Jesus is making several points here.  We will be helped in understanding these points by unpacking them one by one.

  Imagery:  Wolves prey on sheep. They are fierce, and from a human perspective, pitiless. In observing a wolf attack a sheep, we quite naturally feel sorry for the innocent prey being devoured by the predator. Wolves "gang up" on their prey; even a much larger animal can be brought down when attacked by a pack of wolves.

Application: There is antipathy between preachers and their audiences. The preachers are innocent sheep; audiences are fierce wolves. Later in Matthew 10, Jesus describes ways in which audiences to the disciples' message would react fiercely to it:

They would arrest the disciples (v.17)
They would have the disciples flogged (v.17)
They would turn against members of their own families when some would choose to believe the disciples' message while others would reject it, even to the point of betraying a believing family member to death (v.21)
They would hate the disciples and persecute them, not for any wrong they did, but because the message was an offense to them (vv.22,23; cf. Psalm 35:19 NIV and 69:4, where the psalmist was hated without a cause).

  Imagery: Snakes, too, are predators. They are known for their subtlety and shrewdness. They, unlike wolves, lie in wait silently for their prey, sometimes blending in with their surroundings until their prey unwittingly comes within striking distance. Doves, on the other hand, are harmless, feeding on seeds, insects, and berries, and they are sociable creatures which mind their own business.

Application:  Jesus' disciples were to use sound judgment in their modus operandi.  Open and honest communication is good, but there are also times when too much or inapt communication is not good. Silence, at times, is golden.

  A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in a setting of silver (Proverbs 25:11, my emphasis).

As Christians we are to

  Let [our] conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that [we] may know how to answer everyone (Colossians 4:6 NIV).

In other words, Jesus' disciples must use discernment and wisdom, which at times involves an element of shrewdness. By the same token, however, our lives must also be exemplary and blameless in the midst of a wicked and perverse generation (Matthew 16:4). Our good deeds are to bear witness to our heavenly calling, and they are to glorify our Father in heaven (Matthew 5:14-16).

If in being obedient to our commission to make disciples (or in context here in Matthew to preach "The kingdom of heaven is at hand," v.7) we suffer for righteousness sake, then so be it. It is far better to suffer as our teacher has--since students are not above their teachers in this regard (vv.24,25), than to be well thought of and well spoken of by everyone we meet.

Jesus calls us to be both discerning and wise, as well as innocent and blameless. Even when we are called before kings and governors, God will give us the right words to use, if we prayerfully and humbly allow Him to anoint our testimony for Him (vv.19,20).

shrewdness is not without the elements of preparedness, study, audience analysis, and keen listening skills. Peter encourages us to

  . . . sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who ask you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence (1 Peter 3:15).

To make a defense and to give an answer presumes, first, we are being asked questions, and second, we know how to respond to those questions, even if that means we become familiar with the arguments our opponents may use against us. To learn in advance how to answer those arguments is at the very heart of apologetics (Peter's Greek word for defense).

Interestingly, prior to sending out the "12" to preach to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel," Jesus warned them that not everybody would accept their message (viz., "The kingdom of heaven is at hand"). His words to them:

  As you enter the house, give it your greeting. If the house is worthy, give it your blessing of peace. But if it is not worthy, take back your blessing of peace. Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet (Matthew 10:12-14 NASB).

With his words, Jesus was in effect telling his disciples to recognize when their audience was unreceptive. The disciples were not to keep on preaching to a hostile audience; rather, they were to leave a hostile house or city and allow God to judge the people in his own way and time. Jesus said,

  Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city (Matthew 10:15 NASB).

In conclusion, I ask myself the question, "Am I truly listening to people's questions about the hope within me and responding accordingly, as Peter encourages me to do,  or am I simply delivering a 'one size fits all' message with no attempt to listen first, and then speak?" As James tells us,

  But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger (1:19).

I suspect that becoming angry with a hostile audience and venting one's anger on them will never accomplish the righteous purposes of God. Moreover, it might in fact do more harm than good (see James 1:20)!


What is the biblical basis for salvation by faith alone (sola fide)? One of the key issues in the Reformation was the doctrine of Sola Fide, that is, that salvation is by faith alone, apart from works.

What, then, is the biblical basis for this belief?

I'm going to have to limit my quotes from Scripture and leave some compelling verses out, because there are simply so many.  This answer would be even longer than my  normal long-winded answers if I included all supporting Scripture references.  Please forgive me if I miss something you consider relevant.

First, there is the entire book of Romans, which is a build-up to, statement of, and then supporting evidence of, the doctrine.  Some relevant verses:

Chapter 1 is a description of Gentiles (non-Jews) and shows the wickedness as part of the build-up.  By extension, this shows that religious affiliation (even to a so-called "one true Church" as many denominations claim) can save us.

Chapters 2 segues into showing that the Jew is no better, for even though they have the promise of God, they are still corrupt.

Chapter 3 continues to show that the Jew (and by extension everyone) is unable to attain salvation through the works of the Law and gets to verse 27:

  Romans 3:27 and 28 (KJV)

  27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay:
  but by the law of faith.  28 Therefore we conclude that a man is
  justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

The remainder of Romans is support for this doctrinal statement.  Paul starts out by showing how the early heroes of the Jewish faith were not justified by their own goodness, but by Faith on God.

He then goes on to show how the Law is perfect, and cannot save us, but rather was given to us that we might know what sin is - so that we can realize that we are sinful.

In the words of Ray Comfort in his teaching on Hell's Best Kept Secret, God's Law is like a mirror that shows us to ourselves in our true nature.  If we see we have a dirty face in a mirror, we don't wash our faces with the mirror.  No, we wash our faces with water.

Likewise, we can't wash away our sins with the mirror of God's law, but instead are washed clean by the blood of Christ. This is the essence of the message to the Romans.

Other verses throughout the New Testament also state this doctrine plainly.

  Epesians 2:8-9 (KJV) 8 For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works,
  lest any man should boast.

As I said in the beginning, a comprehensive list of Scriptures would be prohibitively large, and it would be impossible to do a better job of answering this than has already been done by Paul in Romans, but here is a link to an article with more.

http://www.biblefacts.org/bible/salfaith.html


Which is a greater sin - to eat meat on Good Friday or to spoil it I'd cooked 4 meals on Wednesday and left two for today, failing to take into account the fast. I'm not sure whether the meals will be safe to eat tomorrow. Which would be a greater sin - to eat them, or to let them become spoiled?

Regarding whether the Church can impose fasting as a matter of precept, St. Thomas Aquinas writes (Summa Theologica II-II q. 147 a. 3 ad 2):

  It will be a mortal sin to disobey a commandment through contempt of the lawgiver's authority, or to disobey it in such a way as to frustrate the end intended by him: but it is not a mortal sin if one fails to keep a commandment, when there is a reasonable motive, and especially if the lawgiver would not insist on its observance if he were present. Hence it is that not all, who do not keep the fasts of the Church, sin mortally.

If there is no way (which is very unlikely) to preserve the food (e.g., by refrigerating, canning, fermenting, salting, etc.) or feed it to animals—and since letting food go to waste would be a sin of wastefulness, which is against justice—it may be a "reasonable motive" to consume it immediately.


Why doesn't the Orthodox church consider Saint Augustine Doctor and Father? Saint Augustine (Doctor Gratiae) is considered by Catholic and Anglican churches as:

  one of the most important Church Fathers in Western Christianity for
  his writings in the Patristic Era. (source)

I read Confession and City of God and frankly his writings are very lighting.

Why doesn't the Orthodox church recognize him by these titles?

There is a certain amount of freedom within the various Christian Churches to employ or ascribe certain titles to particular saints or blessed in their own way (or traditions).

The title of Doctor of the Church was first instituted officially on September 20, 1295 by  pope Boniface XIII, when he accorded this title to four saints, Pope Gregory the Great being the first.

  "The Doctors of the Church are great saints known for their defense and explanation of the truths of the Catholic Faith. The original eight Doctors of the Church—four Western (Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine, Pope Saint Gregory the Great, and Saint Jerome) and four Eastern (Saint Athanasius, Saint Basil the Great, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. John Chrysostom)—were named by acclamation, or common acknowledgment; the rest have been named by various popes, starting with the addition of St. Thomas Aquinas to the list by Pope Saint Pius V in 1568."

Even within the Catholic Church, various local churches and Rites have added their own saints to the official Catholic list of 34 Doctors of the Church. If this freedom exists in the Catholic Church, it follows then that other denominations have the same freedom!

  "In addition, some parts of the Roman Catholic Church have recognized other individuals with this title. In Spain, Fulgentius of Ruspe and Leander of Seville have been recognized with this title. The Syro-Malabar Catholic Church has recognized Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory the Great, Augustine, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom, as well as Ephrem the Syrian, Isaac the Elder, Pope Leo I, John of Damascus, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius of Salamis, and Gregory of Nyssa. The Chaldean Catholic Church has recognized Polycarp, Eustathius of Antioch, Meletius, Alexander of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Fravitta of Constantinople, Ephrem the Syrian, Jacob of Nisibis, James of Serug, Isaac of Armenia, Isaac of Nineve, and Maruthas."

As for the Eastern Orthodox Churches:

  "The Eastern Orthodox Churches honors many of the pre-schismatic saints as well, but the application of the term Doctor or Father of the Church is somewhat more flexible than in the West, and it is misleading to look for lists of officially recognized Doctors. An Eastern Orthodox understanding of such pillars of the Church include saints such as Photios I of Constantinople, Gregory Palamas, Nicodemus the Hagiorite, and possibly even more recent saints such as Nektarios Kefalas. An exception to this flexibility is the grouping of Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom, universal teachers or Doctors who are collectively known as the "Three Hierarchs" and represent the Christianization of the Hellenic tradition and education."

The Eastern Orthodox uses various other titles that other denominations generally do not invoke for their saints. Their traditions remain quite valid.


Why did Jesus refuse to accommodate the Pharisees insistence on washing hands before eating bread? In the New Testament we find various rules of accommodating others in the spirit of love and peace. For example:

  To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. (1 Corinthians 9:20, NIV)

I understand this to mean that to those who considered themselves still under obligation to observe some ceremonies of the law, though they had begun to believe the Gospel, Paul became like them under the same obligations.

However, when the Pharisees pointed out that the disciples did not wash there hands before eating Jesus did not accommodate them at all, but used the opportunity to show that he was in direct opposition to traditional Rabbinism.

  "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!" (Matthew 15:2, NIV)

The question is: Why was it so important to Jesus NOT to accommodate the seeming neutral rule about washing hands before eating bread? What was the harm in accommodating the Pharisees?

Well, they were traditions--not commandments.  Jesus actually rebuked them for rejecting the commandments of God in order to keep their traditions, calling them hypocrites for doing so.

  And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as
  it is written,  “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their
  heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as
  doctrines the commandments of men.’ You leave the commandment of God
  and hold to the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a
  fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish
  your tradition!   Mark 7:6-9 ESV

The problem the Pharisees had was their tradition, because in following it they believed they attained righteousness before God by their own efforts.  Jesus defied the traditions and called them hypocrites to reveal that they could not attain righteousness in such manner.


What are the foundational texts on biblical interpretation? I've recently become interested in learning more about the process through which Christian scholars interpret the Bible. Recognizing that the question about biblical intrepretation and its limits itself is far too long for this forum, what are the foundational or otherwise notable resources on the process of discerning truth in the Bible?

Specifically, anything that talks about:

The degree to which cultural context can override clear statements.
How hidden truths can be differentiated from preferential interpretations.

Would be great!

Edit: Thanks for the feedback on the broadness of the question. I'm actually satisfied with Dick Hardfield's answer as it gives me a great starting point.

As @fredsbend has said, each group has their own "go to" theologians that they lean on heavily, at least for theological interpretations. Because of this, you would need to specify a denomination or group that uses a particular source or foundational texts as a guide to interpreting the Bible from a theological perspective.

You ask about the process through which Christian scholars interpret the Bible, and this is somewhat easier. Here I interpret 'scholars' in terms of critical scholars, rather than theologians. The theory of biblical text interpretation is called hermeneutics.  There is a concept known as exegesis, or reading meaning out of the text, and this is contrasted with eusegesis, reading meaning into the text. Eusegesis can result in preferential interpretations, and is generally avoided by critical scholars.

Since at least the nineteenth century, scholars have identified processes for interpreting the Bible from different perspectives, attempting in different ways to discover the underlying meaning and original sources of biblical text. The most important of process is Historical criticism, which includes Source criticism, Form criticism, Redaction criticism, Tradition criticism and Radical criticism. These methodologies do not have standard texts which scholars using the method must follow, but were proposed by a pioneer scholar and then refined and improved by peer review and experience.

Historical criticism attempts to understand the cultural context in which passages were written and thereby the degree to which cultural context should influence our understanding of the texts.

Narrative criticism is a relatively new methodology, originating around 1970, that takes a completely different approach than historical criticism, at the same time being consistent with it. Narrative criticism attempts to understand how a book was written and how it influenced its intended audience.  One of the earliest texts from that period is Mark as Story, by David Rhoads, Joanna Dewey and Donald Michie, now in its third edition. This book quite clearly demonstrates the use of Narrative criticism.


Do Catholics have an "Apocrypha" or just a "Bible"? Pardon my ignorance here, but I am just wondering if the Apocrypha is labeled as such by Catholics?

To clarify, a Protestant would refer to the 66 books of Protestant Scripture as "the Bible", and to the "extra" books in the Catholic Bible as "the Apocrypha". What I am wondering is whether:

A) Catholics have a "Bible" which includes "the Apocrypha" as well as 66 other books, or

B) Catholics just have a "Bible" and reject the label "Apocrypha"

If the answer is A, do the "66 other books" have a label as well?

Neither of your options is correct. Catholics typically refer to what Protestants call the Apocrypha (1-2 Macabees, Sirach, etc.) as deuterocanonical books, and they do include them in the Bible as inspired, God-given writings.

They were in use in the church from before the NT times, and IIRC, it was Jerome that gave them the name "apocrypha" and the Council of Trent that established them as deuterocanonical. See Development of the Old Testament Canon and Apocrypha in the Wikipedia.


Does Calvary Chapel assume everything is wrong in this world? (I ask this question because my only exposure to Jesus has been through Calvary Chapels for many years.)

If you attend Calvary Chapel (or ever listened to the radio station K-WVE broadcasted nationally or I guess world-wide now) there seems to be an undertone of something always having to be wrong in this life. People call in with testimonials about being drug addicts, ill, etc and it was Jesus that saved them (which is great!).

But it seems this is where this non-denomination starts to max out.

At the church I go to, I sincerely wonder if the pastor is happy at all in this life and he seems only focused on the next...

Is this the basis of catch as many people as possible (for Jesus) since we all hit hard times?

Is specific to this non-denomination or is it generic to other Christian "ways" ?

From your description, this sounds simply like the application of the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity, which is typical of many congregationalist congregations.


When did a Catholic church council first recognize the need to forbid forcing or outwardly compelling unbelievers to the Christian faith? We all know the sorrowful history of the subject. The very early church would have never felt a need to have a council on the subject, just as they would have been no council declaring that Christians should not commit adultery, or theft. However, assuming that the church did degrade itself into this non-Christian behavior when did a council first condemn it?

The earliest record I could find is at the fourth council of Toledo in 634AD:

  The fourth Council of Toledo had declared,... that it was unlawful and unchristian-like to force people to believe, seeing it is God alone who hardens and shows mercy to whom he will. (source,  P238)

Unfortunately this small sentiment of liberal thinking did no go that deep as it was partly made to stop the forced Baptism of Jews, yet the council still insisted that those Jews who were 'already baptized by force' should be still
compelled to the observance of Christianity. Therefore, we can regard the declarations of this council as only partially admitted the sin it had become so overcome with.

An actual translation into English of the councils decree can be found here;

  Praecipit sancta synodus, nemini deinceps ad credendum vim inferre; enim vult Deus miseretur, et quem vult indurat;” — “The holy synod that none hereafter shall by force be compelled to the faith; for God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” (Works of John Owen, Volume 14, Page 270)


Texts in Eastern services expressing ideas about the role of woman in child development I have quite a specific question about the view of ancient Christians on the development of a child. I always assumed, that since the Ephesus Fathers considered being born of human woman as a paramount proof for Christ being truly human, that they must have considered the role of woman as important. On the other hand most ancient natural philosophers tended to diminish the role of woman, claiming that she is only the nurturer of male sperm.

My question is: are there liturgical texts about Theotokos that would somehow reflect the views of contemporary Christians about this? I vaguely remember some mention of the role of blood of Mary, but I can't recollect if it was Octoechos or Menaion and what was exactly stated there.

In Octoechos, ec. 7, 9th hirmos of the Sunday canon (not sure how it is called in English) we can read:

Слову плоть взаимодавшая

This can be translated as

lended flesh to the Word

Or, 1st troparion of Theotokos Sunday canon, ec. 5:

От чистых кровей Твоих усырися плоть преестественно

That is:

From pure bloods of Yours, densed the flesh (of Christ) supernaturally

In the last troparion of the Canon to Eucharist:

Бог воплотися от чистых кровей твоих

that is

The God incarnated from pure bloods of yours

And one of my favorite

внутрь во чреве Твоем плоть исткася
inside the womb of Yours, the flesh (of Christ) en-weaved

There are many other troparions like these in Menaion, but i can't find them so quickly.
In short, the significance of Theotokos' contribution in Christ's development was never underestimated. As well as Mary's own holiness, which can be seen from many other texts.


According to the Bible, is it a sin to marry a non-virgin? According to the Bible, is it a sin to marry someone who is not a virgin?

For the purpose of this question, lets exclude dealing with the following scenarios:

the special cases of somebody not being a virgin due to the death of their spouse.
the practical difficulty of being able to figure out if somebody is a virgin. (See Hymenorrhaphy)
the practical difficulties of meeting people who avoid premartial sex in this modern age.

I'd like to hear answers that present a Biblical basis for whether or not the act itself is a sin rather than anything from modern cultural perspective.

Why would it be a sin to marry non-virgin? Jesus said that nothing from outside (e.g. not washing of hands before eating) defiles a man but what comes from the heart. Not being a virgin does not make the person impure or a sinner.

If the person is a Christian I don't think it would be a sin to marry such person. It would be practical love if a Christian marries a non-virgin even after having the knowledge beforehand.

In the Bible, God asked Hosea to marry an harlot and have children with her. This did not turn Hosea to a sinner. Whatever God declares pure is pure.

If any man is in christ, old things have passed away and everything is new. If she has repented from her old ways then it is ok. We should show love to them and accept them because no matter what we do, God accept them.


How do those who believe in the immortality of the soul explain Leviticus 21:11? How do those who believe in the immortality of the soul explain Leviticus 21:11?

  Leviticus 21:11 Hebrew OT: Westminster Leningrad Codex

  וְעַ֛ל כָּל־|נַפְשֹׁ֥ת מֵ֖ת| לֹ֣א יָבֹ֑א לְאָבִ֥יו וּלְאִמֹּ֖ו לֹ֥א
  יִטַּמָּֽא׃

  He shall not go in to any dead bodies nor make himself unclean,
  even for his father or for his mother (ESV)

The ESV reads "dead bodies". However, the Hebrew literally reads "dead soul."

To my knowledge no serious theologian who doesn't believe in the immortality of the soul uses examples such as Lev 21:11 as proof-texts, so those who do (believe in the immortality of the soul) have not frequently felt the need to defend it on such a charge. Nevertheless, mainstream scholarship provides ample explanation of the lexical phenomenon.

The claim is made in the question:

  the Hebrew literally reads "dead soul."

Although it's true that "soul" is the traditional rendering of nephesh, the term rarely (if ever) means "soul" in the specialized sense that it is used in Christian theology.1

  The more vaguely and naively ["soul"] is used, the more correct and appropriate this translation becomes.2

Lexicons all agree that "soul" is applicable in a minority of cases; the only real disagreement is whether it is ever applicable, and nobody counts Lev 21:11 among the possibilities. Instead, along with a handful of other passages (Lev. 19:28; 22:4; Num. 5:2; 6:11; 9:6, 7, 10, 11, 13; and Hag. 2:13), this usage is glossed by HALOT (the standard modern lexicon of Biblical Hebrew) as:

  deceased person, corpse.

We could leave it at that, but for the sake of thoroughness I will point out that the venerable TDOT rejects this definition (Horst Seebass). To understand why, we return to the OP's suggested translation "dead soul[s],"3 henceforth "dead naphshot" (= plural nephes). In fact, a more fastidiously literal translation would be "naphshot of [one] being dead" or "naphshot of a corpse". At this point we can provide an alternative response to the OP's query:

  nepeš cannot refer to the corpse itself, but only to something associated with it.2

Although he "spiritualizes" nephesh in some sense, then ("vital force"), Seebass points out that all of these examples, which describe the uncleanness that results from proximity to the "naphshot of the dead", still do not carry the sense suggested in the question:

  "Rich and abundant though this use of nepeš for life is, we must not fail to observe that the nepeš is never given the meaning of an indestructible core of being, in contradistinction to the physical life, and even capable of living when cut off from that life." We may therefore assume that even in death the vital force is something uncanny, belonging solely to God, which God’s people should not come near.4

1. The translation "soul" probably came about by way of the Greek psyche. See also, this Q&A which revolved around the same misunderstanding.

2. Horst Seebass. נפש, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testment Ed. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, Heinz-Joef Fabry, Trans. John T. Wills  (Eerdmans, 1974) Volume 9, p. 512ff.

3. I presume this was intended, as the word nephesh is plural in Hebrew and in translation.

4. Seebass, p. 516, quoting Hans Walter Wolff.


Did John Calvin discourage harmonies in congregational singing? In many traditional Reformed churches, the songs found in hymnbooks and psalters (collections of Psalms set to music) are written with four parts: a melody/soprano line on the top, and alto, tenor, and bass harmony lines below.  For example:

I was thus surprised to learn, while listening to a lecture by Kevin Twit, that John Calvin opposed the use of harmony in congregational singing:

  Calvin, for instance, did not think it appropriate to sing the Genevan psalms with harmony, because that was a violation of the unity of the body.
  ["Does Musical Style Matter?" MTW Global Missions Conference 2013]

In which of his writings did Calvin express this preference?  Was "the unity of the body" the only basis for it?

Did John Calvin discourage harmonies in congregational singing?

He did not discourage congressional singing, but it seems that John Calvin did discourage congressional singing in harmony.

  In the area of church music, Zwingli, although an amateur musician himself, had not set down any of his ideas of congregational singing. Calvin, however, was well aware of the power of music and soon stated his ideas "in. Keeping with the austere simplicity of his religious views."(Re p.J58) He referred to St. Paul as his authority in advocating the singing as well as the reciting
  of the psalms, and he permitted no other texts to be used for this purpose. In keeping with his views that the psalms should be understood by the congregation, he adopted the use of French translation, in verse. He found no objection to singing these and other psalm adaptations
  to German melodies borrowred from the Lutherans. His main stipulation in regard to a melody was that it should be the equal of the text in majesty. (Re p.J59)

  Luther demanded of church song that it should be predominantly (but not exclusively) congregational, that it be in the vernacular, and derived from scripture, so that through the medium of song, the Word of God might remain among the people. Unlike Calvin, Luther had no objection either to the traditional Catholic chant or to contemporary part-music. Calvinists on the other hand, steadfastly refused to countenance any of the trappings and ceremonies of Romanism.(Sc xvii) They, too, insisted on the uses of the vernacular and, with the same motive they avoided such musical elaborations as tended to make difficult the understanding of the words being sung or to distract attention from these by linking them with polyphonic settings which openly displayed vocal skill, appreciation of which they regarded as
  a species of sensual enjoyment.

  Calvin states his idea of the role of singing and of the danger of distraction in Book III of the Institutio, (chapter 20, sections 31 and 32):

  "It is fully evident that unless voice and song, if
  interposed in prayer, spring from deep feeling of heart,
  neither h9.s any value or profit in the least with G:od. But
  they arouse his wrath against us if they come only from the
  tip of the lips and from the throat, seeing that this is
  to abuse his most holy name and to hold his majesty in derision.

  Yet we do not here condemn speaking and singing but
  rather strongly commend them, provided they are associated with the heart's affection. For thus do they exercise the
  mind in thinking of God and keep it attentive , unstable
  and variable as it is, readily relaxed and diverted in different
  directions, unless it be supported by various helps.
  Moreover, since the glory of God ought, in a measure, to
  shine in the several parts of our bodies, it is especially
  fitting that the tongue has been assigned and destined for
  this task, both through singing and through speaking, For
  it was peculiarly to tell and proclaim the praise of God.
  But the chief use of the tongue is in public prayers, which
  are offered in the assembly of believers, by which it comes
  about that with one common voice, and as it were, with the
  same mouth, we all glorify God together, worshipping him
  with one spirit and the same faith. And we do this openly,
  that all men mutually, each one from his brother, may receive
  the confession of faith and be invited and prompted by his
  example.

  And surely, if the singing be tempered to that gravity which is fitting in the sight of God and the angels, it both lends dignity and grace to sacred actions and has the greatest value in kindling our hearts to a true zeal and eagerness to pray. Yet we should be very careful that our ears be not attentive to the melody than our minds to the spiritual meaning of the words.

  Such songs as have been composed only for sweetness and delight of the ear are unbecoming to the majesty of the church and cannot but displease God in the highest degree." (Ca pp.894 and 895) - John Calvin and music: the rise of protestant psalters in the sixteenth century

Tim Montgomery goes on to say:

  Bourgeois favored part-singing. Calvin did not. His opposition not only ultimately dismayed Bourgeois so much that he left Geneva in 1557, but the use of unaccompanied melodies characterized the Reformed singing
  of the Psalms, in most places, for centuries. (Ge p.?4)

  In spite of Calvin's opposition to harmonization, four part settings were made by Bourgeois in 1547. His latest known publication (1561) included settings a 4, 5, and 6, described as suitable for instruments as well as voices, of eighty-three of the melodies he had arranged at Geneva. While none of his harmonic versions found permanent acceptance, his melodic settings influenced the harmonization of other composers, especially Goudimel.

Ca, pp. 894-895: Calvin, John. "Institutes of The Christian Religion."
translated by Ford Lewis Battles. The Library of Christian
Classics ed. by John T. McNeill. Vol.'s XXI and
XXII, (Philgdelnhia, The Westminster Press,Vol. XXI,1960,
Vol.XXII, 1954.)


What evidence is there that the Chinese script reflects a knowledge of Genesis 1-11? It has been asserted that the author of the Chinese alphabet could very well been knowledgeable of the accounts in Genesis 1-11--those that occurred prior to the division of peoples and languages at Babel.  It is stated that many Chinese characters intrinsically reflect the peculiarities of the Genesis account.

What is the nature of these characters?  What is the evidence that would suggest that the author of the Chinese script was, in fact, familiar with the Genesis account?

See this as an example

Background

As missionaries have gone to China over the centuries to proclaim the gospel.  Learning the script as an adult can sometimes involve breaking the symbols down into their components to remember them more easily.  In doing so, some missionaries have found some curiosities in the characters that seemed to point to things found in the first eleven chapters of Genesis.

Indeed, if the Bible is true, the creation of languages and the spreading of mankind over the face of the earth began at the Tower of Babel.  All of those people at that time would have had a common history that included the accounts found in Genesis 1-11.  (The account of the Tower of Babel occurs in Genesis 11.)

Ethel Nelson has written a few books on this, the last and best of which is entitled God's Promise to the Chinese.

Characters

Create

The word for create is interesting, combining the characters for speak, dust, life, and walk.  Genesis records that God "spoke" things into existence and specifically formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath of life.

  Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.  Genesis 2:7 NAS

Covet

The word for covet or desire is the combination of two symbols (or three):  two trees and a woman.  This references the account in Genesis 3.  There were two trees, one of which was forbidden.

  When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband.  Genesis 3:6 NIV

Forbidden

The word "forbidden" is also interesting, being the combination the characters for two trees adn God.

Boat

The word boat is the combination of three other characters:  the number eight, person, and vessel.  So, the boat character is "an eight person vessel".  Of course, Noah's ark was populated by him and his wife, his three sons and their three wives.  Thus, the first and only boat recorded in Genesis 1-11 was "an eight person vessel".

Many others

In God's Promise to the Chinese many more characters are examined.  A few characters can be explained away, but after seeing dozens of characters that so closely reflect the Genesis account, it is much more plausible to conclude that the author of the Chinese script was likely quite familiar with the Genesis account.

As a note, Nelson's latest work analyzes the oldest known script.


What does it mean to be "born of water" in John 3:5? John 3:5 (NKJV)

  Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of
  water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Does "born of water" means baptism i.e., water being used in that or Jesus mean something else?

There are two common interpretations of this phrase.  One is that "born of water" refers to baptism.  This view is typically held by those who adhere to baptismal regeneration.
The other view, which I will argue for here, is that it refers to actual physical birth.  In this view, the water might allude to amniotic fluid. This view seems far more likely to me as we view the passage in its context:

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”
“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” John 3:3-8 (NIV)

Notice that after Jesus says that we must be born of "water and the Spirit", he immediately contrasts flesh and Spirit.  In the context, Jesus is answering Nicodemus's concern that he must be born "again".  In one sentence, he mentions two births: water and Spirit.  And in the next sentence, he again mentions two births: flesh and Spirit.  The most natural interpretation is that flesh and water are referring to the same birth.
In addition, notice that Jesus says "So it is with everyone born of the Spirit".  If he were intending to say that everyone must be born of flesh, water (baptism), and Spirit, then it seems that he would have said "So it is with everyone born of water and of Spirit".  Water is painted here as the already accomplished (physical) birth.


Do any of the Church Fathers draw a connection between Eve and the Holy Spirit? In Wild at Heart, author John Eldredge takes some effort to describe the language used in Genesis 2:18 to refer to Eve. While some translations and commentors translate the hebrew "עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדּֽוֹ׃" (ezer kenegdo) "suitable helper" or "help mate", Eldredge comments on the weight of that description while discussing the sanctity and gravity of the marriage union,

  It means something far more than just "helper"; it means "lifesaver." The phrase is only used elsewhere of God, when you need him to come through for you desperately. "There is no one like the God of Jesherun, who rides on the heavens to help you" (Deut. 33:26). Eve is a life giver; she is Adam's ally.

While meditating on this, I was reminded of what Jesus said to the disciples before his crucifixion:

  I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; (John 14:16, NASB)

Do any of the Church fathers compare Eve and the Paraclete?

Perhaps not surprisingly, in light of Ephesians 5, church fathers widely connect Eve with Christ's Church.  This seems to displace other interpretations, like a connection between Eve and the Holy Spirit.  However, it is at least hinted at in Chrysostom, when he compares the Old Testament man to the New Testament man:

  Then [i.e., OT times] He said, “Let us make for him a help,” but here [i.e., NT times] He said nothing of the kind. What other help shall he need, who has received the gift of the Spirit? What further need of assistance has he, who belongs to the Body of Christ? (Homilies on John, 25.2)

That is, in the OT the "help" God provided to Adam was Eve, but in the NT, he has already provided the "gift of the Spirit," so no additional help is required.

Granted, the connection is weakened because Chrysostom goes on to describe other ways in which the New Testament believer has already been provided with "help."
Nonetheless, it's clear that Chrysostom connects the "help" for Adam of Genesis 2:18 (Eve) with the "gift of the Spirit" for the New Testament believer.


In pre-tribulation pre-millennialism, will those who have died before the millennium return to earth? Let's just say God raptures his church in the next few years and we are alive to experience it. We survive the 7 remaining years. Then the "Glorious Appearance" happens and God sets up his 1000 year reign on Earth.

Will our loved ones come down from Heaven to live on Earth with us? Or will we have to live 1000 years with God on Earth before returning to Heaven to see our loved ones? How does that work? Will Heaven on Earth and Heaven become one so that way we will all be able to live together? Or will (Heaven on Earth) and (Heaven) still be two separate places until God takes us up to heaven after his 1000 year reign?

According to Theopedia, in classical dispensationalism men, angels and Christ will return to the earth.

  Classic dispensationalists (ala C. I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer) are pre-tribulationists and believe that the second coming will be in two stages separated by a 7-year period of tribulation. At the first he will return in the air to rescue those who are Christians at that time (the rapture). Then follows a seven-year period of suffering in which the Antichrist will conquer the world and kill those who refuse to worship him. At the end of the seven years, the final witness will go out before men and angels and Christ will return to the earth. He will defeat the Antichrist, and rescue the Jews and those who have converted to Christianity during the tribulation period.

http://www.theopedia.com/premillennialism

Wikipedia says the same thing.

  Dispensational premillennialism[64] generally holds that Israel and the Church are distinct entities.[65] It also widely holds to the pretribulational return of Christ, which believes that Jesus will return to take up Christians into heaven by means of a rapture immediately before a seven-year worldwide tribulation. This will be followed by an additional return of Christ with his saints (though there are post tribulation dispensationalists, such as Robert Gundry).

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