If the second person of the triune god bears witness of himself, why is it not true? In John 5:31 Yeshua says:

  If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

If the second person of the triune god bears witness of himself, why is it not true?

First, lets look at the setting of the entire passage. Jesus was talking to Jewish leaders, and they were accusing him for his claims of equality with God (John 5: 17- 23). This verse has to be looked in a historical and cultural context. In the Jewish law, the testimony of a witness is not received in his own case, so these leaders would render his claim, although true, to be null in court. So Jesus is adhering to their principles: you needed to have other witnesses (Deut. 19:15). Even Jesus advocates for this in Matthew 18:16.
However, its obviously true because there are other witnesses. He has the Father (John 5: 32) (John 5: 37), the witness of his cousin John the Baptist (John 5:33), the witness of his own works (John 5:36) and of the Scriptures and Moses (John 5: 39, John 5:45).

Edited on permission: It has far more to do with His audience than His nature. He goes on in the following verses to illustrate how He has satisfied the Jewish legal requirements of witnesses. Take note as well that ascribing actions to one of Christ's natures or the other can quickly evolve into Nestorianism. If that is your position, that's fine. But you should be aware that it is not consistent with the vast majority of historic Christianity. - @brandimus (local source)

My answer is heavily influenced by "The Robertson's Word Pictures of The New Testament and a user to this site by the name of @brandimus. Another analytic source you can use is "John Gill's Exposition of The Whole Bible, in which you can read more in depth on why Christ said this.

https://www.studylight.org/commentary/john/5-31.html


What should be the role of music in corporate worship? There are many musical expressions used in corporate worship gatherings. Some of these music expressions are corporate (singing songs together), some are experiential (listening to a choir or soloist).

Is there a good and proper way to enfold music into a corporate worship gathering? Is there a bad and/or inappropriate way to enfold music into a corporate worship gathering? What's the role/responsibility of the music leader(s)? What's the role/responsibility of the congregation/participants?

Music is a critical part of a praise service, but it is not always appropriate for other services, such as vigils.

The role of music in the bible is widespread, and there's no right or wrong way to use it. Whether you listen to the music, sing along, or ignore it.

A very common use of music is to take the worshipper on a journey. At the beginning of the worship, some uplifting songs to get people in the spirit, and then using slower, quieter songs to take them down into self reflection and confession. Then, positive, upbeat music to end on a high. It's not uncommon in churches with a younger demographic for these later songs to be rock songs, or very contemporary songs.

There are certainly inappropriate uses of music. Music that detracts from the purpose of the service is inappropriate, which is why you won't usually find music at a vigil service, and the songs at a funeral aren't usually rock songs (although sometimes that could be appropriate, depending on the wishes of the family)

As for the roles, this depends greatly on the exact congregation you're in. At some, the worship leader (pastor, priest, etc) needs to maintain control over music and song selection to ensure that appropriate songs with appropriate lyrics are chosen. Others this is entrusted to a lay person with good biblical knowledge, but often there are both people and they work togther.

For the congregation, I'm of the belief that they should take whatever role they are most comfortable with. Some (most) will sing along, others will listen, others may feel the need to dance, raise their hands, and others (particularly teenagers during a traditional service with hymns from the 1700s) will just ignore it and wish they were elsewhere.


When did marriage become a sacrament? The Nestorian Christians who accept just the first ecumenical council do not have marriage as a sacrament. It seems that matrimony was first insitutionalized as a sacrament in the Roman church at the Lateran council in the 1200s, but it is also a sacrament/mystery in the orthodox churches and this suggests that there is an origin in the ecumenical councils for marriage. Is there a common ecumenical origin of the sacrament of marriage for the catholic and the orthodox churches?

A clue to an answer may be the observation that the oriental orthodox churches, who do not accept the Chalcedonian ecumenical council, also have marriage as a sacrament.

If there is no pre-Chalcedonian ecumenical council that institutionalises marriage as a sacrament, it is of some interest that three doctrinal strands developed the same sacramental theology on marriage.

A formal definition by a council is not always the first instance something was accepted as true (or as a sacrament). Often the council reacted to an attack on an already accepted tenet of faith. Because the attack, the position of the Church had to be officially defined, in order to be formally defended.

There are patristic sources, among whom Augustine, who call Marriage a sacrament, and others who early on describe it in sacramental terms.

"And these are the nuptials of the Lord, so that like that great Sacrament they might become two in one flesh, Christ and the Church. From these nuptials a Christian people is born, when the Spirit of the Lord comes upon that people."
 Pacian, Sermon on Baptism,6(ante A.D. 392),in JUR,II:144

And

"It is certainly not fecundity only, the fruit of which consists of offspring, nor chastity only, whose bond is fidelity, but also a certain sacramental bond in marriage which is recommended to believers in wedlock. Accordingly it is enjoined by the apostle: 'Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church.' Of this bond the substance undoubtedly is this, that the man and the woman who are joined together in matrimony should remain inseparable as long as they live..."
 Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence,1,10[11](A.D. 420),in NPNF1,V:268

Within the Catholic Church, the International Theological Commission wrote the document 'Propositions on the Doctrine of Christian Marriage'. In it, they write the following, confirming the comments by Matthew on the main question that further clarify that the Church sees this sacrament as going back to Christ:

  2.1. Real Symbol and Sacramental Sign

  Jesus Christ disclosed in a prophetic way the reality of matrimony as it was intended by God at man’s beginnings (cf. Gen 1:27; 2:24; Mk 10:6, 7-8; Mt 19:4, 5) and restored it through his death and Resurrection. For this reason Christian marriage is lived “in the Lord” (1 Cor 7:39) and is also determined by elements of the saving action performed by Christ.

  Already in the Old Testament the matrimonial union was a figure of the Covenant between God and the people of Israel (cf. Hos 2; Jer 3:6-13; Ezek 16 and 23; Is 54), In the New Testament, Christian marriage rises to a new dignity as a representation of the mystery that unites Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:21-33). Theological interpretation illuminates this analogy more profoundly: the supreme love and gift of the Lord who shed his blood and the faithful and irrevocable attachment of his Spouse the Church become models and examples for Christian matrimony.

  This resemblance is a relationship of real sharing in the Covenant of love between Christ and the Church. From its own standpoint, Christian marriage, as a real symbol and sacramental sign, represents the Church of Christ concretely in the world and, especially under its family aspect, it is called rightly the “domestic Church” (LG 11).

  2.2. Sacrament in a Real Sense

  In such a way matrimony takes on the likeness of the mystery of the union between Jesus Christ and his Church. This inclusion of Christian marriage in the economy of salvation is enough to justify the title “sacrament” in a broad sense.

  But it is also at once the concrete condensation and the real actualization of this primordial sacrament. It follows from this that Christian marriage is in itself a real and true sign of salvation, which confers the grace of God. For this reason the Catholic Church numbers it among the seven sacraments (cf. DS 1327, 1801).

  A unique bond exists between the indissolubility of marriage and its sacramentality, that is, a reciprocal, constitutive relationship. Indissolubility makes one s grasp of the sacramental nature of Christian matrimony easier, and from the theological point of view, its sacramental nature constitutes the final grounds, although not the only grounds, for its indissolubility.

Source: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1977_sacramento-matrimonio_en.html


What would be the best version of the bible for me? I came across this forum while doing a little bit of research. I just want to say first I do not consider myself Christian. I was raised Christian but always felt it forced on me. I have not been to a church service for 10 years and have no interest in going right now.

That being said, I want to get a bible and read it so I can make an informed decision on what I should believe.

I am looking At purchasing a bible but don’t know what version would be best for me. I want a version that is easy to read but at the same time not an interpretation and as close to a original translation as possible.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Side note: I went to a Lutheran church for the majority of my childhood. My mother still goes to the same church. My dad is a Christian but goes to a different denomination of church. I don’t know what kind.

The major translations of the Bible are the King James Version (KJV), the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard (NAS), the New King James Version (NKJV), the English Standard Version (ESV), and the New Living Translation (NLT).

The KJV and NAS attempt to take the underlying Hebrew and Greek words and translate them into the closest corresponding English words as possible (word for word), while the NIV and NLT attempt to take the original thought that was being presented in Greek and Hebrew and then express that thought in English (thought for thought).  There are pros and cons to each type - the article will help to explain.

You may find this article helpful - it gives insights into these different translations. https://www.gotquestions.org/most-accurate-Bible-translation.html

For more detailed information into the history of how the Bible has been translated, and what those translations are, please refer to this article: https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-versions.html

I realise this presents you with more information than you might need, but, if you are to make an informed decision as to which Bible to buy, then this is a good way to go about it.  One thing I would recommend is that you buy a Bible which contains cross-references, maps, a concordance and so much more to make the Bible come alive and to answer questions that will undoubtedly arise as to start to read.


What sources are used for the Christian Bible translations? When I was looking in the store to buy a bible, I noticed that the different bible translations not only differ in their style of translation, but also in the sources they use.

What are the sources used in common bible translations?

Wikipedia has a good list of the various sources used:

Septuagint
Masoretic
Syriac
Dead Sea Scrolls
Vulgate
Samaritan Pentateuch
Textus Receptus
Codex Bezae
Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Vaticanus
other fragments and partial texts


Is there a term for a marriage between a Catholic and a Protestant? I know that different denominations have different rules about inter-denominational marriages. Is there a specific term for this kind of marriage?

I'm looking for any term from anywhere. Best case, I'm looking for a term for a marriage specifically between a Catholic and a Protestant. Other similar terms would be acceptable, such as a marriage between a Catholic and non-Catholic, or Christian and non-Christian.

In Catholic Canon Law, there is a term that applies: a mixed marriage.

A mixed marriage is one in which one person is a Catholic and the other has been baptized into another Christian denomination.  This isn't specific to Protestants, of course, it applies to any non-Catholic Christian denomination.


What is a Catechism and when and how did they originate One Protestant source says it wasn't until the 16th century that the word "catechism" came into use and it refers to the Heidelberg Catechism, first published in 1563 and approved by the Synod of Dort in 1619.

However, the Catholic Encyclopedia suggests that a catechism was established much earlier:

  By the end of the second century we find the catechumenate in force in all its main lines. Source: https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=2661

I seek information on when and how catechisms first came into use, and welcome Catholic, Orthodox and Reformed Protestant input.  Ths is NOT a who is right or who is wrong question - it's a genuine enquiry into how and when catechisms originated within the Christian faith.

Question: Is there any biblical basis to support the use of a catechism within the Christian faith and how did they originate?

Have a read of the Wikipedia article on Catechesis: churches have long been using the terms "catechist" to refer to teachers and "catechumens" to refer to students, both based on the Greek word κατήχησις meaning "instruction". Then in the late middle ages "catechism" arose as a term for a specific tool for teaching. Apparently it was Luther who popularised the question and answer format of catechisms.

The Bible doesn't have anything to say about specific teaching methodologies, just that it's important to teach and instruct the next generation of Christians to know and trust God.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe in ghosts (or what-ever these may be)? Here's a bit of a story from my childhood that's related to this question.

(Sorry if this is too long but I wanted to explain what I mean.)

I grew up in Sweden in a family of Finnish immigrants. During summertime, when most people took their 4 weeks of vacation, my family would often visit the locality where my dad had grown up, in the Satakunta region.

This locality was about 7 miles from the nearest town and about 20 minute walk to the nearest neighbor. It had been more densely populated in the past but esp. since WW2 people had started moving to larger cities where most of the jobs were. The "farm" (more like a set of houses but no farming or horses for since a long time) where my dad grew up had a main house, two barns, and a separate small sauna building. The main building looked similar to the building to the left in this picture.

Usually when we visited this place, our relatives from other parts of Finland came also so that everyone's kids (my dad had like 6 siblings) could have a chance to be with each other. During these weeks everyone slept in the main house, and supposedly that is where unusual things had sometimes happened.

What I was told is that sometimes one of my uncles had woken up at night because he felt like something (invisible) had sat down on the couch he was sleeping on. At some other times supposedly someones cover had been yanked from off him. Or they had heard foot steps from the stairs leading to the attic, as if someone was coming down from the attic.

And then there was a story that supposedly had happened to my grandfather, on the day his friend had died. This friend had come to visit him and they had chatted for some time and when the friend had left, he had supposedly walked through a closed door and disappeared. Later on my grandfather had heard that that friend had actually died earlier that day.

My dad also told me that his grandfather's father was supposedly known as a male witch (or "warlock" I guess is the right term) although he seemed to have been more like a part-time such.

There were more paranormal stories like these although I never experienced much of anything during the times I visited the place.

(Just wanted to add that I do realize that some people believe these kinds of events are hoaxes, jokes, or are only "experienced" by people who have psychiatric problems, but I personally never felt that I had enough reason to doubt my uncles, aunts or dad who told me these things.)

What I wanted to ask is, do JWs have a belief about these kinds of things, and if so, what causes them? Are there lost souls that are trapped between heaven and hell, or is it something else?

Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in ghosts. They believe that humans return to dust and do not continue to live beyond the grave. (Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalm 146:4) Every supernatural occurrence is the result of either angels, demons (wicked angels), or the holy spirit. The acts of demons are very easy to pick out, because they don't do anything to further God's will, don't result in the fruitages of the spirit, or they clearly contradict what's written in the Bible.

I'm glad that you've not experienced any of these events yourself, because they can be quite dangerous to both your faith and health. It's important to learn the truth about the supernatural so that you can protect yourself from the direct influence of demons. If you seek out the supernatural, you will find it.

This is the Bible's advice summarized here:

  Learn to recognize the Devil’s methods so that you are “not ignorant of his designs.” —2 Corinthians 2:11.
  Take in knowledge from the Bible, and then apply what you learn. Applying Bible principles will protect you from the Devil’s influence. —Ephesians 6:11-18.
  Get rid of anything connected with demon activity. (Acts 19:19) That includes music, books, magazines, posters, and videos that encourage spiritism.

Here's some more relevant articles on jw.org:

Spirit Creatures—How They Affect Us
What Happens When You Die?
What Hope Is There for the Dead?


What is the Adventist response to Justin Martyr? Justin Martyr described Christians worshiping on Sunday twice in his first apology.

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place
But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly.

This document cannot be dated any later than 165 since the author died at 165.
In the great controversy Ellen G White claims that for at least the first 2 hundred years, Sunday worship was unheard of by Christians.

In the first centuries the true Sabbath had been kept by all Christians

Ellen G White's and Justin Martyr's account of Christian history clearly contradict each other. How do Seventh-day Adventists respond to Justin Martyr's claims?

While I don't believe that there is a standard response from the Adventist church on this.  One scholar has proposed that the appendix in which this statement was written, was a forgery, and added after the death of Martyr.

You can refer to the article here.

Adventist would argue that regardless of the contradiction that Sabbath is a biblical concept that has no scriptural evidence that it has been changed to Sunday.


What do Catholics believe about Yom kippur and judgment? Yom Kippur is the Day of Atonement,
The Lords feast as Leviticus says. In Judaism, this is the day where God or Hashem will judge the future, what will happen the next year is decided on Yom Kippur. After a week of Thesuva(repenting) from the Feast of Trumpets /Rosh Hashana to Yom Kippur.Yom Kippur, a day of fasting as the Scripture says.

What is the Catholic doctrine or understanding on Yom Kippur?

Is it anything like or related to the Jewish understanding that the events taking place in the world for the year to come are sealed on Yom Kippur every year? Who will live or who will die, who will get sick and who will become rich and so on. (As Judaism says)?

ref: Lev 16

(The question has nothing to do with eternal salvation!)

It is not the practice of the Catholic Church to have doctrines or precepts about particular Jewish Holy Days or celebrations. If the Church did, it would be easily found in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia actually has to say about Yom Kippur.

  The rites to be observed on the Day of Atonement are fully set forth in the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus (cf. Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 23:27-31, 25:9; Numbers 29:7-11). It was a most solemn fast, on which no food could be taken throughout the whole the day, and servile works were forbidden. It was kept on nineteenth day of Tischri, which falls in September/October. The sacrifices included a calf, a ram, and seven lambs (Numbers 29:8-11). But the distinctive ceremony of the day was the offering of the two goats.

  "He (Aaron) shall make the two buck-goats to stand before Lord, in the door of the tabernacle of the testimony: and casting lots upon them both, one to be offered to the Lord and the other to be the emissary-goat: That whose lot fell to be offered to the Lord, he shall offer for sin: But that whose lot was to be the emissary goat he shall present alive before the Lord, that he may pour out prayers upon him, and let him go into the wilderness . . . After he hath cleansed the sanctuary, and the tabernacle, and the altar, let him offer the living goat: And putting both hands upon his head, let him confess all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their offences and sins, and praying that they may light on his head, he shall turn him out by a man ready for it, into the desert. And when the goat hath carried all their iniquities into an uninhabited land, and shall be let go into the desert, Aaron shall return into the tabernacle of the testimony." (Leviticus 16:7-10, 20-23) -
  Catholic Encyclopedia.

The Church does however uses Melchisedech, Yom Kippur, Manna, and the Paschal Lamb to represent the Eucharist in one fashion or another.

  The Church recognizes many and various realities from the Old Testament as figures for Christ’s gift of himself in the Most Holy Eucharist. On the Solemnity of Corpus Christi in the Ordinary Form, the Church read from the book of Exodus – how the people were cleansed and the covenant ratified through animal sacrifice at the foot of Mount Sinai.

  There are so many images and figures for the Eucharist in the Old Testament – the Manna, the bread and wine offered by Melchisedech, the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), the Paschal Lamb, etc.!

  Yom Kippur and the sacrifices of the Old Law

  "But Christ, being come an high priest of the good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hand, that is, not of this creation: Neither by the blood of goats, or of calves, but by his own blood, entered once into the holies, having obtained eternal redemption." (Hebrews 9:11-12)

  While all the sacrifices of the Old Law point to the perfect sacrifice which Christ would offer in his own blood upon the Cross, that expiatory sacrifice of Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) is the chief figure of the Crucifixion of our Savior.

  On this day, the only time in the year, the high priest would enter into the Holy of Holies and, taking the blood of sacrifice, would sprinkle this blood in the direction of the Ark of the Covenant. Further, the blood would be sprinkled in several other places in the Temple. The priest, on this single day, invoked the Most Holy Name of the Lord – seeking mercy for himself and for the people.

  This was the only day of the year in which anyone entered the Holy of Holies, which was the most sacred part of the ancient Temple. This Holy of Holies was a sign and figure for the eternal sanctuary of heaven, which Christ opened through the shedding of his own Most Precious Blood. - Melchisedech, Yom Kippur, Manna, and the Paschal Lamb: Figures of the Eucharist

The Association of Hebrew Catholics has this to say about celebrating Jewish feasts and holidays:

  As Hebrew Catholics, we can recognize this same teaching technique in the parables of Jesus and the Sacraments which He initiated. Bread and wine, water and oil, incense and candles, prayers and songs are all rich and integral parts of Catholic liturgy and tradition.

  By celebrating the Hebrew feasts in light of Catholic truth, we can pass on to our children the great heritage of Faith, the wonder of God’s actions in the history of His people, and the enduring promise of salvation through Yeshua haMashiach.

Here is what they say about Yom Kippur:

  Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, is the day when God’s judgment is believed to be sealed for the coming year. The ten days between Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur are called the Days of Penitence. It is a time to repent of and to correct those things we have done wrong, especially to our neighbor, and to ask God’s forgiveness.

  For everyone thirteen years and older, Yom Kippur is a day of fasting. Fasting encourages humility and repentance, disciplines the body and clarifies the mind as we examine our conduct and thoughts.

  In the synagogue, the ancient Kol Nidre (Absolution of All Vows) is chanted and confession of sins as commanded in Leviticus 26:40 is made. At home, memorial candles are lit for members of the family who have died. The Mourner’s Kaddish and final blowing of the Shofar conclude the day.

  I have continued to keep Yom Kippur as a day of fasting and repentance, not for myself but for the Jewish people, especially those who have turned away from God. I also light candles and have Masses offered for departed relatives. It is the only holiday that makes itself known by the absence of food and festivities. We offer our prayers as we conclude the fast at the evening meal. - Yom Kippur

The Association of Hebrew Catholics has the ecclesiastical support of Archbishop Raymond L. Burke.


Why Does Matthew not give Jesus Christ's genealogy from Adam? In Matthew 1:1, it says that Jesus is the son of David and the son of Abraham. Why does he not start from Adam and Eve?

This question spawns from a misunderstanding of why the genealogy is there in the first place.

The genealogy is not a benign collection of facts, much like our own western approach to the topic would have it listed. Instead, Matthew provides Jesus' genealogy to legitimize him for any Jewish readers.

First, consider that everyone is from Adam. It means nothing for any purpose to start a genealogy from Adam. We all came from Adam. If Matthew was simply stating the facts of Jesus' family line, then starting at Adam would have been acceptable. But Jesus needed to be legitimized for a Jewish audience.

Abraham is the father of all Judaism. That's not just a colloquialism. Abraham literally is the ancestor of all Jews, by both blood and marriage. The genealogy starts at Abraham to tell the audience that Jesus was indeed a Jew.

Judah, the son of Jacob, stands out as the forefather one of the twelve tribes. This tells the reader that Matthew is claiming Jesus is from the tribe of Judah.

David stands out, and is probably the most important, because of specific messianic prophecies that the Messiah must be from the line of David. Matthew claims Jesus is the Messiah, so this one name in Jesus' genealogy is vitally important.

In contrast to modern, western thinking, Matthew used Jesus' genealogy like an address, proving that he is the Messiah. There is a very obvious appeal to Jewish readers. A number of other things stand out, such as the fact that it is listed in three sets of fourteen, indicating a kind of poetry, and the heavy annotations in the first set, but missing from the other two.

Compared to Luke's genealogy, which is more utilitarian and fact centered, tracing from Jesus to Adam, it is clear that Matthew's genealogy serves a very specific purpose.

The sources on this are abundant across the internet. The Wikipedia article Genealogy of Jesus is a good start.


How does the Christology of the Baha'i faith differ from that of trinitarian Christianity? In his letter dated 28 March 1941 addressed to the believers throughout the West, Shoghi Effendi emphasizes: As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended....  ("The Promised Day is Come", rev. ed. (Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1980); p. 109)

With regard to the resurrection of Jesus, they believe that although there was no physical bodily resurrection, “His Spirit... ascended to the presence of God and continued to inspire and guide His followers and preside over the destinies of His dispensation.” - Resurrection of Christ and the Bible.

I would like to know the perspective of Christian denominations (any who subscribe to the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed or the Athanasian Creed) on the beliefs of the Baha’i Faith  (especially with regard to the person of Jesus Christ).

To help Christians who are not familiar with the Baha’i Faith, I present some of their teachings (taken from official sources) in the hope that will help to elicit a response from traditional and orthodox Christians.
The following quotes appear, at face value, to suggest that the Baha’i Faith acknowledges the Christian view of the divinity and reality of Jesus as the Son of God:

“As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its Divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the Divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended.  The Founder of the Christian Faith is designated by Bahá'u'lláh as the 'Spirit of God', is proclaimed as the One Who 'appeared out of the breath of the Holy Ghost', and is even extolled as the  'Essence of the Spirit'.”  (Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 490)
“Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping.  By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee.  The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit.” (Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 85)
“If you reflect upon the essential teachings of Jesus you will realize that they are the light of the world.  Nobody can question their truth.  They are the very source of life and the cause of happiness to the human race.”  (Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 250)
“The traces of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, the influence of His Divine Teaching, is present with us today, and is everlasting.”  (Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 91)

Although the Baha’i Faith upholds Jesus as divine and a manifestation of God, they do not believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to God the Father.  Here is a brief overview showing how very different the Baha’i Faith is from Christianity:

God is transcendent and can't be known directly. God is known through the lives and teachings of his great prophets, the most recent of whom was Bahá'u'lláh.
The inner reality of the Buddha, Jesus, Krishna, Mohammed, Zoroaster, Abraham, Moses and others was all exactly the same inner reality. All the major world’s religions came from one and the same God, Buddhism included.
The Bahá'í religion accepts all other faiths as true and valid. Bahá'ís accept the divine nature of the missions of Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, the Buddha, Jesus and the Prophet Muhammad.  They believe each one was a further stage in the revelation of God.  Other prophets and Manifestations are also accepted.  All religions have the same spiritual foundation, despite their apparent differences.

With regard to the resurrection of Jesus, they do not believe Jesus’ body ascended into heaven: “His Spirit... ascended to the presence of God and continued to inspire and guide His followers and preside over the destinies of His dispensation.” The Resurrection of Christ and the Bible by/on behalf of  Universal House of Justice alone identifies the Baha’i Faith as not being Christian.
Perhaps the “deal breaker” is the rejection of the Christian doctrine of sin and the need for people to repent and place their faith in what God, in Christ Jesus, has done to redeem us from the consequences of sin.  To adherents of the Baha’i Faith, man is merely imperfect, not fallen, so there is no merit in the death of Jesus to atone for sin.  There is no concept of the seriousness of sin which cuts us off from God or the consequence of rejecting Jesus as the only way, the only truth and the only life.
Other Sources:
What Bahá’ís Believe
Bahá’u’lláh and His Covenant.


Does my monk go to heaven? Possible Duplicate:
  What happens to people who have never heard about Jesus?

I have found this very basic question perplexing to different pastors, rectors, and members of churches: If there is a monk who has lived in the mountains of Asia, who has lived a good life, and not sinned by our definition, but does not know of or ever heard of Jesus, does he go to heaven or hell?  He does not reject Jesus or a single God, but he also has never heard of him.

I'm going to try to answer this from a purely Scriptural point of view, rather than a particular doctrinal stance.

The short answer is, according to Scripture, no.  But there are a few points to address in the question.

  and not sinned by our definition

Everyone on earth has sinned, save Jesus.

  Romans 3:23 (KJV)

  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

When you examine it, every one of us has broken each and every one of the Ten Commandments, if not in deed, then in heart and in intent.  For example, perhaps we've never committed adultery physically, but as Jesus said, if we've looked at someone with lust, we've committed adultery in our hearts.

  Matthew 5:28 (KJV)

  But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in
  his heart.

We've all broken the other Commandments in spirit as well, but even if one of us has squeaked away with not committing all of them, it doesn't matter.  The Bible tells us that if we've broken even one, we're guilty.

  James 2:10 (KJV)

  For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point,
  he is guilty of all.

So, the theoretical monk is not sinless by the standards laid forth in Scripture.

Romans 1 touches on the subject of whether or not we are held guilty if we've never heard the Gospel message.  It lays out a few truths:

God reveals Himself to us, and we are without excuse.
Our ancestors had access to the truth of God, and chose to turn from them.

  Romans 1:18. (KJV) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
  unrighteousness;
  19. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
  20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
  his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
  21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and
  their foolish heart was darkened.
  22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
  23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and
  creeping things.

Their unbelief and rebellion against God meant that their children, their children's children, and so on were not taught about God.  It's not His fault, it's theirs.  Because they chose to rebel when they knew the truth, and didn't teach their children, they doomed their children to not knowing the truth of God.  This is one reason that Proverbs 22:6 is important.  (Again, KJV)

  Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will
  not depart from it.

In Romans 2 (KJV), we read:

  11. For there is no respect of persons with God.
  12. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by
  the law;
  13. (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
  14. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law
  unto themselves:
  15. Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while
  accusing or else excusing one another;)

This theoretical monk would qualify, not knowing about the Hebrew God, or Jesus as one who "sinned without the Law", and Scripture here tells us that "he shall perish without law". He will perish because he has sinned, and ignored the conscience that God has placed in each and every one of us.

Finally, it should be noted that even in civil, earthly law, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law.

If I were to carry a concealed weapon in a state that doesn't allow concealed carry, for example, and I was arrested, would I be able to avoid the consequences by telling the Judge "I didn't know"?  No.  I'd be punished according to the law, whether I intentionally broke the law or not.

As we saw in Romans 2 (quoted above), the Bible tells us that God will not accept ignorance as an excuse.  He will perish without the Law, as God's word states, because he has sinned and broken the law, not because he has rejected Jesus.  Accepting Jesus is the only way to be saved.  He pays the penalty for our guilt.  However, the reason we are guilty is not because we didn't accept Him, it's because we chose to sin.

We can try to blame God all we want, and we can even try to blame the ancestors, but the simple fact remains that the monk will be condemned because of his own sin.


What part do Monks play in the Christian church? I'm really interested in the practices of monks, one of which is being quite confined from society.

I very much respect their practices and am curious to know what fruits they bear in the Christian Church? For instance: Jesus commands us to go and make disciples. Do the Monks find themselves making disciples with newcomers in their monasteries or are there other practices which take place which build up the church?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has the following to say about consecrated life in general (i.e. professing vows to live in a more dedicated expression of faith, as with friars, monks, sisters, and nuns). Emphasis mine:

916 The state of consecrated life is thus one way of experiencing a "more intimate" consecration, rooted in Baptism and dedicated totally to God. In the consecrated life, Christ's faithful, moved by the Holy Spirit, propose to follow Christ more nearly, to give themselves to God who is loved above all and, pursuing the perfection of charity in the service of the Kingdom, to signify and proclaim in the Church the glory of the world to come.
926 Religious life derives from the mystery of the Church. It is a gift she has received from her Lord, a gift she offers as a stable way of life to the faithful called by God to profess the [evangelical] counsels. Thus, the Church can both show forth Christ and acknowledge herself to be the Savior's bride. Religious life in its various forms is called to signify the very charity of God in the language of our time.
927 All religious, whether exempt or not, take their place among the collaborators of the diocesan bishop in his pastoral duty. From the outset of the work of evangelization, the missionary "planting" and expansion of the Church require the presence of the religious life in all its forms. "History witnesses to the outstanding service rendered by religious families in the propagation of the faith and in the formation of new Churches: from the ancient monastic institutions to the medieval orders, all the way to the more recent congregations."

So the temporal goals of consecrated life are to:

Provide an example of the world to come (in terms of lifestyle, focus on God, etc)
Provide a stable way of life with which to practice the evangelical counsels of chastity, poverty, and obedience
Signify the charity of God in ways appropriate to the present time
Collaborate with their bishop to evangelize, “plant”, and expand the Church

A monk would be a type of consecrated life called an “eremitic” or “cloistered” life that does not have contact with the world and thus cannot directly evangelize or perform acts of service. The Catechism discusses that too:

The eremitic life
920 Without always professing the three evangelical counsels publicly, hermits "devote their life to the praise of God and salvation of the world through a stricter separation from the world, the silence of solitude and assiduous prayer and penance."
921 They manifest to everyone the interior aspect of the mystery of the Church, that is, personal intimacy with Christ. Hidden from the eyes of men, the life of the hermit is a silent preaching of the Lord, to whom he has surrendered his life simply because he is everything to him. Here is a particular call to find in the desert, in the thick of spiritual battle, the glory of the Crucified One.

So the purposes of eremitic life are to:

Demonstrate a personal intimacy with Christ
Be a silent preaching of the Lord


Who was the Blessed Virgin Mary's guardian angel? Catholic teaching is that "Every one of the faithful has his own special guardian angel from baptism. (Sent. certa.)" (Ludwig Ott II ch. 3 §30.2; cf. Matt 18:10: "See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.").
According to Catholic theologians or mystics, who was the Blessed Virgin Mary's guardian angel? St. Gabriel the Archangel?

Who was the Blessed Virgin Mary's guardian angel?
Being the Queen of Angels, Mary certainly had many Guardian Angels, probably including St. Gabriel and St. Micheal.
Mary is superior by order of grace, not nature - angels are superior to Mary according to nature, and thus would have been afforded her as everyone else, as guardian.
Mary, Queen of Angels was born like all mankind in the physical sense of the word. By a singular gift from God She was preserved from all stain of original sin at the moment of conception. St. Thomas says that all men receive a Guardian Angel at birth. Mary is no exception and received her Guardian Angel(s) as is the condition of living here on earth.

As Origen observes (Tract. v, super Matt.) there are two opinions on this matter. For some have held that the angel guardian is appointed at the time of baptism, others, that he is appointed at the time of birth. The latter opinion Jerome approves (vide A, 4), and with reason. For those benefits which are conferred by God on man as a Christian, begin with his baptism; such as receiving the Eucharist, and the like. But those which are conferred by God on man as a rational being, are bestowed on him at his birth, for then it is that he receives that nature. Among the latter benefits we must count the guardianship of angels, as we have said above (Articles 1 and 4). Wherefore from the very moment of his birth man has an angel guardian appointed to him. - Article 5. Whether an angel is appointed to guard a man from his birth?

Although privileged with the grace of an Immaculate Conception, Mary still had to work towards her own salvation, albeit in an exceptional manner.

Maria Agreda, the visionary, taught that the Blessed Virgin Mary had hundreds of guardian angels, including St Michael and St Gabriel. - Here are 7 Interesting Facts about Guardian Angels

The Venerable Mary of Agreda The Mystical City of God states the following:

It was ordained therefore by the Most High, that the sovereign Child should voluntarily keep this silence during the time in which ordinarily other children are unable to speak. The only exception made was in regard to the conversation held with the angels of her guard, or when She addressed Herself in vocal prayer to the Lord. For in regard to interaction with God, the Author of speech, and with the holy angels, his messengers, when they treated in a visible manner with Her, this reason for maintaining silence did not hold good: on the contrary it was befitting, that, since there was no impediment, She should pray with her lips and her tongue; for it would not be proper to keep them unemployed for so long a time. - Her Childhood Years
She invited her own angels to help Her to return proper thanks, and in union with them She alternated new songs of praise. Then She asked the same favor of the rest of the angels and saints in heaven; but during all this time the divine love so inflamed Her, that the Lord was obliged to strengthen Her, lest all her natural forces be consumed and death ensue. - Her Devotion to the Passion of Christ and to the Holy Eucharist-HowShe Celebrated the Immaculate Conception and other Feasts
For this purpose the most blessed Trinity despatched the archangel Gabriel with many others of the celestial hierarchies, who should announce to the Queen when and how her mortal life should come to an end and pass over into the eternal.
The devout Queen resolved to take leave of the holy places before her departure into heaven, and having obtained the consent of saint John She left the house with him and with the thousand angels of her guard. Although these sovereign princes had always served and accompanied Her in all her errands, occupations and journeys, without having absented themselves for one moment since the instant of her birth; yet on this occasion they manifested themselves to Her with greater beauty and refulgence, as if they felt special joy in seeing themselves already at the beginning of her last journey into heaven. The heavenly Princess, setting aside human occupations in order to enter upon her journey to the real and true fatherland, visited all the memorable places of our Redemption, marking each with the sweet abundance of her tears, recalling the sorrowful memories of what her Son there suffered, and fervently renewing its effects by most fervent acts of love, clamors and petitions for all the faithful, who should devoutly and reverently visit these holy places during the future ages of the Church. On Calvary She remained a longer time, asking of her divine Son the full effects of his redeeming Death for all the multitudes of souls there snatched from destruction. The ardor of her ineffable charity during this prayer rose to such a pitch, that it would have destroyed her life, if it had not been sustained by divine power. - Saint Gabriel brings notice of Death

The original unabridged Spanish edition has a whole chapter (23) dedicated to De las divisas con que los Santos Ángeles de guarda de María Santí- sima se le manifestaban, y de sus perfecciones. In can be read here: Mistica Ciudad de Dios
St. Micheal the Archangel seem a good choice as one of Mary’s Guardian Angels.

According to tradition, it was the holy archangel who led the Virgin Mary to heaven during her Assumption.
While little is known about the nature of the Virgin Mary’s Assumption into heaven, various traditions have been passed down over the centuries that relate the historical event and reflect on what could have happened.
For example, there are many different traditions, both from the East and West, that state St. Michael the Archangel was the principal angel in charge of leading the body and soul of Mary into heaven.
This is an ancient tradition, in accord with a belief that St. Michael was the angel who weighed the deeds of a deceased person and led them into eternal life. For this reason St. Michael is frequently depicted in statues or paintings holding scales. The liturgy of the Church appears to confirm this role of St. Michael with the following offertory chant said during a Requiem Mass.

O Lord Jesus Christ, King of glory,deliver the souls of all the faithful departed … let the standard-bearer holy Michaellead them into that holy light.

A medieval text known as the Golden Legend relates an encounter Mary had with an angel prior to her death, preparing her for her assumption.

Then behold, an angel stood before her amid a great light and greeted her reverently as the mother of his Lord. “Hail, blessed Mary!” he said, “receive the blessing of him who bestowed salvation on Jacob. See, Lady, I have brought you a palm branch from paradise, and you are to have it carried before your bier. Three days from now you will be assumed from the body, because your Son is waiting for you, his venerable mother.”

The angel’s name is not immediately revealed, but later on when Mary “died,” Jesus comes into the narrative and gives instructions to the holy archangel.
Christ nodded his consent and immediately Michael the archangel came forward and presented Mary’s soul before the Lord. Then the Savior spoke and said: “Arise, my dear one, my dove, tabernacle of glory, vessel of life, heavenly temple! As you never knew the stain of sin through carnal intercourse, so you shall never suffer dissolution of the flesh in the tomb.” Thereupon Mary’s soul entered her body, and she came forth glorious from the monument and was assumed into the heavenly bridal chamber, a great multitude of angels keeping her company.
While these legendary stories likely have no historical basis, they do provide for us a piece of meditation and invite us to consider how the Virgin Mary was welcomed into heaven by her Son and a company of angels. In particular, it would make sense for the “Prince of All Angels” to be at the forefront of those who welcomed the “Queen of Angels” into heaven. - How St. Michael the Archangel led the Blessed Virgin Mary to heaven

The following may be of interest to some:

Is the Angel of Portugal Actually Saint Michael the Archangel?


Is Jonathan Edwards's view of "philosophical necessity" compatible with the Westminster Standards? Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) was a major 18th century theologian who, though rooted in Reformed theology, innovated in some important ways.  According to J. V. Fesko, in The Theology of the Westminster Standards (chapter 4), one of these areas was Edwards's belief in philosophical necessity, which Fesko explains:

  Nothing, according to Edwards, can occur without a cause, and there is a "fixed connection" between cause and effect.  For Edwards, if everything has a cause, there can be no contingency in the world.  For him, contingency means that something has no cause.

Thus, says Fesko, Edwards denies the idea of contingency.  But this seems to deviate from the Westminster Confession of Faith, 3.1:

  God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

Fesko mentions one author, William Cunningham, who "argued that Edwards's views were compatible with the teaching of the Reformers and the Westminster Standards."  But Fesko lays out the case against compatibility in more detail, and concludes that "the Confession does not teach philosophical determinism (or necessity) and does affirm contingency."

I don't believe that Edwards subscribed to the Westminster Confession, so a lack of compatibility isn't necessarily surprising.  But I'd like to better understand how Edwards's view differs from that of the Westminster Confession, and how, in the eyes of some, they can be reconciled.

A refutation of Dr. Whitby's: Discourses on the 5 Points (1710). Calvinist/Arminian Debate:

  "Dr. Whitby asserts freedom, not only from coaction, but Necessity, to be essential to any thing deserving the name of sin, and to an action being culpable; in these words, (Discourse on Five Points, edit. 3. p. 348.) “If they be thus necessitated, then neither their sins of omission or commission could deserve that name: it being essential to the nature of sin, according to St. Austin’s definition, that it be an action a quo liberum est abstinere. Three things seem plainly necessary to make an action or omission culpable; 1. That it be in our power to perform or forbear it: for, as Origen, and all the fathers, say, no man is blameworthy for not doing what he could not do.” And elsewhere the Doctor insists, that “when any do evil of Necessity, what they do is no vice, that they are guilty of no fault, are worthy of no blame, dispraise, or dishonour, but are unblamable.”

  Edwards, Johnathan. Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume One (Kindle Locations 16144-16149). Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Kindle Edition.

It is as important to understand the purpose of Johnathan Edwards' discovery of his own philosophy on this matter; as it is to attempt to interpret what he was actually saying.

In his apology of causation, divine providence, free will, the fall of man, and God's foreknowledge and purpose in regard to these things; it is important to remember that these were the central points of a debate, which was instigated by Whitby's own proclamations; with respect to these same points from the Arminian (Pelagian) viewpoint.

The thrust of Edwards' most perspicuous writings on this topic, sprang from this one instance; in an attempt to defend the prevailing, Calvinist position of God's impunity in the sovereign predetermination of the 'First, and Second Causes', of His own creation. Thus the debate has always been central to this mystery:

'If God has predetermined all courses of events, from a position of omniscience, infinite wisdom, and purpose; known only to himself, and for His own intent; how is it then possible, at the same time, for man to truly possess a free will (every single person, who has ever taken the time to think about this. pg 1.)'

  Articles of The Westminster Confession, bearing the most direct relevance to this question:

  3.1)  God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel
  of  his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes
  to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of  sin, nor is
  violence offered to the will of  the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

  3.2) Although  God  knows whatsoever may or can come to pass
  upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass
  upon such conditions.

  3.5[i]  ...out of  his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of  faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto...

  4.2) After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male
  and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after his own image; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it: and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change (continues).

  5.1-2) God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest
  even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according
  to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.
  2.  Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of  God,
  the First Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature  of second  causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

  6.1)  Although God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof, yet he did not long abide in this honour; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress the law of their creation, and the command given unto them, in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.

  9.1-2) Of Free Will God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.
  2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.

The entire body of articles, which make up The Westminster Confession, is replete with this. I only chose the most salient, though certainly not all.

These terms: 'Moral Necessity' and 'Natural Necessity'; are the pivotal elaborations which Edwards uses and the only segues he ventures; with the supposed intention of squaring with this natural difficulty; and that might possibly beg the question, of whether or not they also square with The Westminster Confession.

Do they? This is the question

If I had to choose only two, of a hundred intricately structured arguments, it would be these (especially the second).

  'And if the case of moral impossibility or Necessity, be just the same with natural Necessity or coaction, as to its influence to excuse a neglect, then also, for the same reason, the case of natural difficulty does not differ in influence, to excuse a neglect, from moral difficulty, arising from a strong bias or bent to evil, such as Dr. Whitby owns in the case of those that are given up to their own hearts’ lusts. So that the fault of such persons must be lessened, in proportion to the difficulty, and approach to impossibility. If ten degrees of moral difficulty make the action quite impossible, and so wholly excuse, then if there be nine degrees of difficulty, the person is in great part excused, and is nine degrees in ten less blameworthy, than if there had been no difficulty at all; and he has but one degree of blameworthiness. The reason is plain, on Arminian principles; viz. because as difficulty, by antecedent bent and bias on the Will, is increased, liberty of indifference, and self-determination in the Will, is diminished; so much hindrance, impediment is there, in the way of the Will acting freely, by mere self-determination. And if ten degrees of such hindrance take away all such liberty, then nine degrees take away nine parts in ten, and leave but one degree of liberty. And therefore there is but one degree of blameableness, cateris paribus, in the neglect; the man being no further blamable in what he does, or neglects, than he has liberty in that affair: for blame or praise (say they) arises wholly from a good use or abuse of liberty. From all which it follows, that a strong bent and bias one way, and difficulty of going the contrary, never causes a person to be at all more exposed to sin, or any thing blamable: because, as the difficulty is increased, so much the less is required and expected. Though in one respect, exposedness to sin is increased, viz. by an increase of exposedness to the evil action or omission; yet it is diminished in another respect, to balance it; namely, as the sinfulness or blamableness of the action or omission is diminished in the same proportion. So that, on the whole, the affair, as to exposedness to guilt or blame, is left just as it was.'

  Edwards, Johnathan. Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume One (Kindle Locations 16196-16207). Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Kindle Edition.

...

  —If the Will be not free in the first act, which causes the next, then neither is it free in the next, which is caused by that first act; for though indeed the Will caused it, yet it did not cause it freely; because the preceding act, by which it was caused, was not free. And again, if the Will be not free in the second act, so neither can it be in the third, which is caused by that; because in like manner, that third was determined by an act of the Will that was not free. And so we may go on to the next act, and from that to the next; and how long soever the succession of acts is, it is all one: if the first on which the whole chain depends, and which determines all the rest, be not a free act, the Will is not free in causing or determining any one of those acts; because the act by which it determines them all is not a free act; and therefore the Will is no more free in determining them, than if it did not cause them at all.—Thus, this Arminian notion of Liberty of the Will, consisting in the will’s Self-determination, is repugnant to itself, and shuts itself wholly out of the world.

  Edwards, Johnathan. Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume One (Kindle Locations 13780-13788). Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Kindle Edition.

I am at a loss, with regard to the scope, with which this question could be exhausted; aside from writing a Doctoral Thesis. Even so, the debate would not end. After having read the entire first third of The Works of Johnathon Edwards Vol I, which is completely devoted to the core, and fringes of this debate, in myopic detail; I have given up. Though it would be extremely difficult to find a single leak, in what seems to me, to be an airtight obsession on the part of Edwards regarding this subject.

I do not see where he deviates. In fact, he may just be the champion (Aside from John Gill's: The Cause of God and Truth.)

Yes, it is compatible.

P.S. I had intended to comment on WMC 3.1
The first clause is imperative.

  God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:

The bridge to the second clause is the epicenter of this debate, starting with:

  yet so:

And I think this next part is the part that you would see reconciled.
God established second causes, upholding the free will of man, and despite
ordaining whatever comes to pass, sin was never His design.

Edit: by request from anonymouswho

"Do not follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought." -Franz Wollang

This is the only premise on which I was able to proceed.

First allow me to clarify my position.

  "...how Edwards' view differs from that of The Westminster Confession..."

I do not see that it does, which voids the necessity to reconcile anything.

I admit that the answer I provide here is wanting, in terms of discovery. The challenge I anticipated was, in fact, this: I had no possible way of knowing, on which front, the first inquiries would arise. I have been watching this question for quite some time. I had thought about attempting to answer it on several different occasions, however, I noticed the quicksand bunkers that surround it. The largest and most obvious to me was this.

Does The Westminster Confession uphold the idea of Determinism. If so, which brand? Is it Logical Determinism, Nomological Determinism,
Strict Divine Determinism, Nomological Divine Determinism? The last thing I wanted to do was spark this debate.

The actual question, as I perceive it, is simply this:

  “I'd like to better understand how Edwards’ view differs from that of The Westminster Confession, and how, in the eyes of some, they can be reconciled.”

However, ‘simple’ is an absurd estimation of ANY question touching the philosophy of Free Will, and Determinism.

Did I intentionally duck this altogether? You bet I did.

The reason that these two arguments from Edwards seem to reinforce the idea that Edwards' view is consistent with logical determinism, is because it is.

The real question is whether, or not, it is compatible with the Westminster Standards. Do the articles of The Westminster Confession uphold the idea of determinism? I can not imagine how anyone could read them and come away with the idea that they do not.

This leaves us at the edge of an ensuing debate, about which philosophical view of determinism they do uphold.

This question would be primarily opinion based, and could not be answered on this site.

Compatiblism is transient by its own definition, and is wholly dependent upon any definition of determinism and its relation to Free Will. In fact, Compatiblism is a form of determinism most commonly associated with Nomological (Soft) determinism. This also would lead to the same debate.

My answer, while withholding any consent to engage these pitfalls, has its own implications with respect to The Westminster Confession, and Determinism. Primarily this one: I see no inconsistency with Edwards’ views and what I read in The Westminster Confession regarding causation, and therefore I have nothing to reconcile. Do I fully understand the nature of Necessity vs Contingency, and Free Will? Not even close.

This is my contest.

  WMC 5.2 Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the First Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

Edwards does link all second causes to the First Cause; being God. This does not mean that he makes no allowance for contingency, it just means that he must also agree, as it follows, that the First Cause must, of necessity, order all second causes to fall out according to His infallible, unchangeable and predetermined Will.

I apologize if anyone read this answer with a preconceived notion that it was going to attempt to prove anything. I did not even try, but rather chose the loophole provided in this "...how, in the eyes of some, they can be reconciled."


What is the meaning of: “a sword will pierce your soul”? One of the joyful mysteries talks about that after Simeon talked to her, the Virgin Mary took the wound of sorrow and accepted God’s will.  What is that supposed to mean if I am trying to achieve a goal?

Thank you.

The fourth Joyful Mystery of the Holy Rosary is the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple, where the holy man Simeon prophesied that (Luke 2:35) her

  own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed.

The Prophesy of Simeon is the first of the seven sorrows meditated upon in the devotion to the Sorrowful Mother.

In fact, Mary's name in Hebrew, מַרְיָם (Mariam), means "bitter sea".

From Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother:

  The martyrdom of Mary was lifelong, for according to Simeon’s prophecy, she was enlightened with regard to the intense sufferings of her Divine Son. Her entire being was steeped in bitterness. The swords which pierced her soul penetrated also every nerve and fiber of her tender, sinless body. To her was wanting that great support which the martyrs enjoyed in their sufferings. During their torments, they directed their inward gaze toward Jesus, the Crucified, by whose grace and love they were strengthened and consoled. The flames of the love of Jesus cooled the fires of torture, softened the strokes of the scourges, and blunted the sharpness of the sword.


Are some people created to go to Hell? This answer presents the following statement:

  God is in control and I believe that His will has always been done. So to say that He's never failed.

So, are some people are destined to go to hell?

I probably have this kind of thinking from some stories in the bible about God harden some people's heart so everything will go as He planned. i.e : Pharaoh and the religious leaders of Israel during Jesus time.

Quite frankly Yes. Some people are created to go to hell. However you are looking at this the wrong way.

Everyone is going to hell without the intervention of a benevolent God (This is known as Total Depravity). Thankfully God has chosen some people to be his children (Unconditional Election). The number of these people is limited. Christ's death was sufficient for everyone however it is only efficient for the Elect (Limited Atonement). God draws us to himself and we do not come to him under our own power (Irresistible Grace). Finally once we are his nothing we do or anyone else does can take us from him (Perseverance of the Saints).

Now that my statement of faith has been laid out let me give the scriptural proof for each element:

Total Depravity: Mark 7:21-23 (NIV)

  For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.

Unconditional Election: Romans 9:11 (NIV)

  Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand:

Limited Atonement: John 10:11 (NIV)

  “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

Irresistible Grace: Phillipians 2:12-13 (NIV)

  Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.

Perseverance of the Saints John 10:27-28

  My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.

These are just some of many verses that support this particular position (these are the Reformed counter points to the 5 points of Aremenianism and tend to the points of differentiation between them) There are plenty more here.

All of this to basically say the following

There are some people who are chosen and some who aren't
We don't know the difference just from looking at someone so it really shouldn't effect  how we live our lives.
Its only by grace that any of us are elected


What can be the Christian defence of the argument from J.L. Schellenberg’s “Divine Hiddenness”? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/
"This argument says that if God existed (and was perfectly good and loving) every reasonable person would have been brought to believe in God; however, there are reasonable nonbelievers; therefore, this God does not exist."

Two meanings of "divine hiddenness"
First, it's important to note (as the Stanford Encyclopedia entry makes clear in the first 2 paragraphs) that "divine hiddenness" as used in Schellenberg's argument should be distinguished from the age old meaning of "divine hiddenness" where believers agonize over the perceived absence of God in the believer's life, such as in Job, Jesus's cry on the cross, or "the dark night of the soul".  In Schellenberg's argument the person uses the hiddenness to justify the belief that God does not exist, but in the believer's case the belief stays intact but provides a cause for the believer to "cry out" to God for His action or His presence.  Thus, the two uses of "divine hiddenness" refer to two different facts.  The rest of this answer will tackle the use as in the Schellenberg's argument.
Summary of the Christian defense
A 2019 Themelios journal article The God Who Reveals: A Response to J. L. Schellenberg’s Hiddenness Argument (pdf here) by Daniel Wiley acknowledges that "as divine hiddenness is increasingly used to justify nonbelief, it will become increasingly essential for the Church to offer rebuttal." He then carefully restates the most up-to-date version of the syllogism (see Section 1), taking into account Travis Dumsday's definition in 2016 and Schllenberg's own update in 2017, to demonstrate that one or more of the premises are in error.
Daniel then demonstrates how Schellenberg's argument, which has the following 3 core foundations:

The positive correlation between love and one’s openness to personal relationships
Nonresistant nonbelief
The rationality of God as an omni-benevolent being

fails for three reasons:

It assumes a correlation between love and openness that does not reflect the way men and women establish openness to relationships.
It is not able to prove nonresistant nonbelief.
It has not established God’s omni-benevolence apart from Scripture.

Quotes from the article to support the 3 reasons
Perfect Love and Openness to Personal Relationships (Section 2)

The heart of this argument is found in the correlation between love as expressed by human persons and love as expressed by God. As Schellenberg argues, if there was no possible analogy between God’s love and human love, then human language could not speak about God at all.¹⁸ This correspondence is best witnessed in a parent’s love for his or her children. In normal cases, the best parents always love their children, and this love manifests itself through a parent’s openness to relationship with his or her children. Now, if a parent is not open to relationship with his or her children, he or she is seen by others as a bad parent. Therefore, God, who is the perfect “parent,” much always be open to relationship with his “children,” lest he falls short of omni-benevolence.¹⁹
The force of this argument is strong, and especially because of its emotional angle. Those parents who refuse relationship with their children are seen as abnormal and less than truly loving. If that is so, then how can a perfect God avoid such scrutiny if he is not open to relationships with finite creatures? Nevertheless, the implied assumption with the above argument is that one’s openness to relationship is positively correlated with one’s love. ...
2.1. Parents and Closed Doors
... However, we can conceive of scenarios in which a parent’s love does not determine the openness of a relationship.   For instance, a child could grow up and become delinquent in a way that would threaten the safety of his or her parents and family (examples include becoming a serial killer or a sex offender).  A good parent will always love that child, but would a wise parent keep that relationship open considering the circumstances? ...
2.2 A Response to Potential Counter Rebuttals

Rebuttal: ... he could argue that God is perfectly loving, and thus his openness is never affected by the imperfections of human relationships or purposes that influence openness.
Response: ... such logic would contradict Schellenberg’s own thesis. As stated above, we can speak of God’s love because we understand human love. Furthermore, having proven that openness is also determined by purpose and not just love in man, it would be impossible to correlate human love with God’s love if God’s love is the final arbitrator in determining his openness but human love is not. Without this correlation between humankind and God regarding love, the logic behind the hiddenness argument cannot stand.

Rebuttal: ... he could argue that God is sovereign, and thus can be open to any relationship that he wants to regardless of humanity’s sin or vice.²¹ Therefore, the dangers of human actions would not affect God’s ability to be open to any relationship with any finite person.
Response: ... to say that God can be open to relationship with all humanity says nothing about God’s necessity to be open to all humanity. The original version of the hiddenness argument draws the correlation between perfect love and openness, not ability and openness. This is changing the argument. Nevertheless, even if ability is included in the argument, it still does not override the fact that openness is also determined by purpose, as previously demonstrated. If human persons have various degrees of openness based upon purpose and not just love, then why can’t God’s openness also be dependent upon his purposes and not just his love?²²

Rebuttal: ... he could argue that the deviant child already knows of the parents’ existence, and thus the relationship is not truly “closed” in the sense that the child lacks awareness of their existence.
Response: ...  such logic would run contrary to Schellenberg’s own reasoning. Giving an example of a child who is enthusiastic about parents who do not have any relationship with the child, he concludes, “Their attitude towards him, whatever it is, doesn’t amount to the most admirable love, since they are closed to being in a personal relationship with him.”²³ At this point in the argument, openness vs. closedness is not indicative of existence vs. nonexistence, lest the above logic would make no sense (the closedness of the parents’ relationship in the example says nothing about their existence—they obviously exist!). Therefore, Schellenberg would have to retract his reasoning here (reasoning that is valuable to his argument) to make the rebuttal stand.

Nonresistant Nonbelief (Section 3)

According to Schellenberg’s logic, a perfectly loving God who is always open to a personal relationship with each finite person will make His existence knowable, for surely a God who hides evidence of Himself cannot be perfectly loving. Therefore, those who reject this necessary evidence for God must be in a state of resistance towards God.²⁵
However, Schellenberg also argues that there are many people who have not resisted or currently resist the idea of God but rather remained or currently remain unconvinced of His existence. These people include: (1) Early homo sapiens, who had no concept of or need to consider theistic religion, (2) Former believers, those who once held to theistic religion but converted out after reflection upon the evidence, and (3) Secularists who have felt no conscious desire to pursue discussion of God.²⁶ Schellenberg confidently concludes, “So anyone with some acquaintance with evolutionary history and a willingness to look truth in the eye will be able to see that, in the actual world, many people in our history have failed to believe in God without resistance of God in any way coming into the explanation of their nonbelief.”²⁷ In summary, if an all-loving God exists, then he would never close off relationships with finite creatures, and thus all nonbelief would be resistance. However, since there are some who do not resist God, then God must not exist. Unfortunately, as convincing as nonresistant nonbelief appears to be, this line of reasoning has numerous difficulties.
3.1. An Unprovable Assumption
... The reason for the unverifiability of nonresistant nonbelief is that nonresistant nonbelief is a conceptual thought of the mind. Therefore, there is no possible way for one to prove that one possesses nonresistant nonbelief beyond stating that one has nonresistant nonbelief.
...
... Nonresistant nonbelief as a provable state of mind is in no different a position than my inability to prove that I am thinking about taking my beautiful girlfriend for a ride in my new convertible or the believer trying to prove that God exists because he had a “personal encounter” with God. When this point is realized, Schellenberg’s proposed “evidence” simply becomes a “hand count” of all the people who claim to live or may have lived in a state of nonresistant nonbelief and not actual proof that nonresistant nonbelief exists. Even if one is truly in a state of nonresistant nonbelief and makes this claim with confidence, the fact that one cannot prove this claim makes the argument meaningless as an apologetic for atheism.
3.2. Ignorance of Resistant Nonbelief
The second difficulty is the assumption that resistance is always a conscious act. One’s personal belief that one is not resisting God is, alone, not proof of nonresistant nonbelief, for one could be deceived. Ironically, Schellenberg offers evidence for this rebuttal in his attempt to establish the existence of nonresistant nonbelief! Commenting on the nonresistant nonbelief of pre-theistic homo sapiens, Schellenberg argues,

Think about it. These are people who don’t believe in God. So they are nonbelievers–they are not in a state of belief in relation to the proposition that God exists. And how could they be resistant? It’s not even possible since resistance of God presupposes thinking about God, and their whole picture of the world is shaped in such a way that thinking about God just wouldn’t happen.²⁸

The reader will notice that Schellenberg contests that “resistance of God presupposes thinking about God.” However, the reader will also notice that these pre-theistic homo sapiens had a whole picture of the world “shaped in such a way that thinking about God just wouldn’t happen.” By this statement, Schellenberg admits that the thinking of these pre-theistic homo sapiens is so directing and controlling of the minds of these individuals that they would never think about God.
This thinking that is so directing and controlling is clearly evidence of a worldview, and understanding how worldviews work is essential in recognizing the importance of the previous point. God may have very well left evidence of Himself, but these pre-theistic homo sapiens developed a worldview that does not recognize God (at least in a theistic sense) and thus construe the evidence to fit their own worldview. ...
... As a final thought to this rebuttal, pre-theistic homo sapiens are not the only ones who could have a worldview that removes God from discussion. Is it not possible that a secular humanistic view of the world, which, by its very nature, attempts to define all life and purpose apart from God, would shape one’s mind in such a way that God becomes unimportant? Might a secular humanistic culture suppress the idea of God and interpret all the evidence God left of himself thought a secular lens and thus reject the idea of God a priori? Secularists may be convinced that they are not resisting God, but how can they be sure of this when they have, just as the pre-theistic homo sapiens did, a whole picture of the world that is shaped in such a way that thinking about God just wouldn’t happen?
...

The Omni-Benevolence of God (Section 4)

... arguing for the omni-benevolence of God apart from Scripture is Schellenberg’s challenge. ... Why would philosophers simply assume that God, if he exists, is all-loving? There is certainly much in the world that would suggest otherwise (this is why the problem is evil is so problematic!). Furthermore, love as an attribute of God has not been universally held by the world’s religions both past and present. ... popular historical viewpoints on God have been fine without omni-benevolence as necessary for God, for example, Deism.³⁵ Perhaps God’s omni-benevolence is not so obvious after all.
Nevertheless, Schellenberg is certain that it is “reasonable” to conclude that God, if he exists, is omni-benevolent. Commenting on the qualities a perfect person must possess, he remarks, “Contrary to what some of my critics have said, such reflection—and not just Christian prejudice—is what lay behind my claim in Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason that a God would be perfectly loving.”³⁶ Since cultures have disagreed on the status of “love,” and thus “love” is not universally recognized as a perfection, Schellenberg bears of burden of proof in arguing that love as a perfection is not simply a Western cultural perspective but a proposition that can be proven by reason apart from Scriptural revelation and cultural influence.
4.1. The Urgency of Schellenberg’s Defense
... If Schellenberg cannot prove that God must be loving, then he must rely on Scripture to prove that God is omni-benevolent. This, however, would be the death warrant for the hiddenness argument, for to be consistent, Schellenberg would have to use all of Scripture to define God and man rather than just what is convenient for the hiddenness argument. As even the most simple-minded Bible college student knows, the Scriptures present a worldview radically different than that presented by Schellenberg, a worldview that is purely modernistic. The most significant and obvious distinction between Schellenberg’s secular worldview and the biblical worldview is the nature of man. According to Scripture, man is not a morally-neutral being but is a sinner and in a natural state of rebellion against his Creator (Rom 3:9–19; Eph 2:1–3; cf. Gen 8:21; Col 2:13). Man does not reject God because there is no evidence for God, but because man twists the evidence to justify His own rebellion and hate of God (cf. Rom 1:18–23).
Of course, proponents of the hiddenness argument would hardly accept Scriptural testimony to the nature of man as a rebuttal of the hiddenness argument. For secularists, the Bible is a biased religious document and thus it is meaningless to reference Scripture to refute the hiddenness argument. Schellenberg follows the play-book well. ...
... the radical distinction between a biblical worldview and the hiddenness argument forces Schellenberg to argue for God’s omni-benevolence apart from Scripture. If Schellenberg cannot do so, then it is obvious that he must rely on Scripture to form the idea of God as all-loving. However, if he does so, then he must also accept the rest of the biblical testimony regarding the nature of God and man.
4.2. A Rationally loving God?
As urgent as the matter is, Schellenberg only offers one clear non-biblical argument in proof of God’s omni-benevolence in The Hiddenness Argument.⁴³ This argument proceeds as follows:

Here’s one way to think about it. Bring before your mind the concept of the greatest possible person—a person so great that none could be greater—and suppose also that this person has created a world including finite persons. Think about this person’s attributes. Now either your conception already embraces perfect love towards those other persons among its attributes or it doesn’t. If it does, I’ve made my case. If it doesn’t, then ask yourself what is the result of mentally adding perfect love to the collection of attributes you’ve conceived.⁴⁴

Schellenberg’s example fails to prove that love is a perfection for two reasons. First, the argument begs the question, for it assumes that a more impressive person would be “perfectly loving” without proving that love is a perfection. Second, it bases the judgment of love as a perfection completely upon the reader, as if the reader’s perception of the value of love determines whether love is a perfection. Just because Schellenberg’s reader assumes that the addition of perfect love makes one a morally impressive person does not actually make that person morally impressive. If the reader concluded “no,” then would love no longer a perfection? Western culture may value love (however it is defined by western culture), but western culture’s admiration for something alone does not make it “good” in an objective sense, much less a perfection.
...

Continuing relevance for Christian apologetics (Section 5)
Despite the argument's shortcomings for Christians, Daniel noted that Christian pastors and educators should seriously understand the appeal of this argument and its staying power, just as the problem of evil remains relevant today:

Although the argument is emotionally satisfying and comfortably coincides with a rising secularism in our culture, there are just too many unproven presuppositions in the hiddenness argument for it to stand scrutiny.
Nevertheless, even with its problems, the hiddenness argument is not likely to go away anytime soon. Just as the problem of evil remains in writing at the popular level in spite of its difficulties,⁴⁵ so likely will the hiddenness argument also persevere, and especially as secularism continues to grow in Western culture. Schellenberg acknowledges that the hiddenness argument “is now quite regularly explored alongside the venerable old problem of evil in philosophy classrooms and texts.”⁴⁶ Therefore, pastors, educators, and students of theology cannot be ignorant of this “new” argument and its shortcomings.


On what scriptural basis do some Protestants end their prayers "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"? The question is being asked because Jesus teaches us to pray to the Father (Matthew 6:9) in his name (John 14:13-14).  It makes sense on an intuitive level that one would supplicate one Person (the Father) in the name of another (the Son).   But to supplicate the Father in the name of the Father (in his own name?) and Son and Holy Ghost, or to supplicate the Father, Son and Holy Ghost all at once in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, makes little logical sense. It sounds like those prayers people make in public when there are Deists around so they prayer to God and end with "in YOUR name" rather than "in Jesus' name."  Supplicating someone in their own name doesn't make sense.  Anyway, all of that aside, scripture only mentions praying to the Father in Jesus' name, so how can the custom of closing a prayer "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" be justified scripturally?  Or do the Protestant traditions that engage in this practice simply drop Sola Scriptura on this practice and justify it by Catholic tradition?

Asking why "some protestants" do close their prayers in a particular manner, while seemingly limited, is still quite a broad question, in fact so broad as to  probably be unanswerable. I submit that it would be more profitable to ask a particular protestant why he or she ended a particular prayer with the particular formula you cite. I rather suspect that in the case of most extemporaneous prayer, most of the time the answer you will receive will be on the order of "it seemed the right thing to do at the time", or "the Spirit inspired me to do so". Further, as to justifying a particular close to a particular prayer, I can't think of any protestants I know who would feel a need to justify a particular form of closing prayer in a particular circumstance.

Can you provide some examples of prayers ended with the formula you cite? None of the prayers in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England, and other prayer books in my collection, I don't find any examples that end with the formula, "in the name of..." that you cite. Every one I examined end with some variation of "through Our Lord Jesus Christ...".


Do angels possess 1) a body, soul and spirit, 2) a soul and spirit or 3) just a spirit? My personal understanding is that plants have a body, animals have both a body and a soul, and mankind has a body, a soul and a spirit.  However, angels, as I understand, do not have a body that is physical.  Jesus seems to have indicated this after His bodily resurrection.

  See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.  Luke 24:39 ESV

Are angels, then, classified as spirits, having no flesh and bones?  If so, are they spirits with souls or just spirits?

I would like an answer from the perspective of those who hold to the tripartite nature of mankind (body, soul and spirit).  I do not know if positions differ between the traditions of Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic.  If they do, I am specifically interested in what Protestants believe on this issue and and in what ways this is distinct.

Within the writings of defenders of the trichotomic nature of man there is significant variation on the question of the nature of angels.  The trichotomy of man is a much more popular doctrine within Protestantism than in other branches of Christianity, so that's the background of the theologians quoted  here.
The simplest part of this question is, do angels have spirits?  It's not surprising that these theologians hold that angels are spirit or have spirits.  Evidence for this will be seen as I handle the remaining two questions: Do angels have bodies?  Do angels have souls?
Do angels have bodies?
Defenders of the trichotomic nature of man fall into three camps on this question: (a) angels do not have bodies, (b) they have a particularly pure body, unlike our own, and (c) we don't know.
(A) J. Rodman Williams belongs to the first camp:

Angels are pure spiritual beings.  [...] This is not an attribute or quality of their being; rather in essence angels are spirits.  Angels, accordingly, are incorporeal: they have no bodies. A spirit, a pneuma, does not have flesh and bones.1

Another proponent of this view is Franz Delitzsch.  He discusses the visible manifestations of angels as follows:

The angels have no bodies; but, by the miraculous power of their will, they might be able to make themselves visible, and to take what forms they pleased, according to the object of their mission, and the subjectivity of the beholder.2

This, he says, is the only sense in which it can be said that angels have bodies: that "like the divine nature, [their spiritual nature] is capable of manifestation."2
(B) The second camp holds that angels have bodies, but that these bodies are somehow more pure or more spiritual than those of man.  Clarence Larkin simply states, "angels have bodies."3  John Bickford Heard, while saying that angels have no "physical nature,"4 nonetheless suggests that angels, like resurrected men, have "pneumatical bod[ies]":

To man [belongs] the nutritive, sentient, and rational, with the germ of the spiritual, and to angels the sentient, rational, and spiritual, without the nutritive. [...] Since man hereafter is to be equal with the angels, the nutritive or plant life cannot form part of his resurrection body. [...] This transformation of man from a psychical to a pneumatical body is analogous to the transformation of insects.5

(C) Those more hesitant to take a position on this question include Lewis Sperry Chafer, who writes, "if the angels have bodies, their bodies are of a spiritual order."6  Similarly, Jan Jacob van Oosterzee calls the question "wholly uncertain" of whether angels were "created free from all corporeity, or simply from our more gross one."7
Do angels have souls?
Here we have more agreement, though some commentators do not directly address the question.  Not surprisingly, members of the first group above, Williams and Delitzsch, do not believe that angels have souls.  Delitzsch writes:

Not as though the angels also had souls: we could only speak of the souls of angels as of a [soul] of God. [...] Scripture only speaks of souls of men and of brutes.8

Heard does not discuss angels having souls, and Johann Tobias Beck writes that "we never hear of a soul in angels."9  Chafer approvingly quotes10 another trichotomic theologian, Hans Martensen, who says:

It is precisely because the angels are only spirits, but not souls, that they cannot possess the same rich existence as man, whose soul is the point of union in which spirit and nature meet.11

Conclusion
In conclusion, we can summarize the views of trichotomic theologians as follows:

Angels are, or have, spirits.
Angels do not have bodies like men; if they do have bodies, they are in some sense spiritual bodies.
Angels do not have souls.

References:

Williams, Renewal Theology, Volume 1, 173–74.
Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology, 81.
Larkin, Rightly Dividing the Word, 93.
Heard, The Tripartite Nature of Man, 87.
Heard, The Tripartite Nature of Man, 354.
Chafer, Major Bible Themes, Chapter 20. (also archived on WebCite)
Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics, 316.
Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology, 231.
Beck, Outlines of Biblical Psychology, 9.
Chafer, Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Chapter 2.
Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, 133.