How do Lutherns and Reformers explain when God's Preceptive Will goes against His Decretive Will? Is there any insight to understand how God Himself doesn't wish any to fall away (His preceptive will) and the fact that His decretive will states that some will?

Further, Zachariah and Romans speak to how God loved Jacob and hated Esau.  This was nothing more than a matter of God's choice according to the bible.  So, how does this decretive will get rationalized with the desire God has for none to fall away?

This may need some clean up to reach it's final form and maybe someone has better examples to use.

God's preceptive will or revealed will is made known in His word, but His decretive will or secret  will is His own hidden counsel.  When we speak of God's  revealed will, this defines OUR duty and our standard responsibilities.  The reason we should do or take certain courses in our lives is because God has revealed His will for us in His word.  But suppose that I disobey God's word, have I crossed His will and if so, how can it still be true that God's will is always done and His counsel accomplished at all times?
We frequently cross God's revealed will but His secret will is never broke.  The distinction is clear in scripture.

"For this is the will of God, even your sanctification" (1Thessalonians 4:3)
"For who hath resisted His will?" (Roman's 9:19)

Can we truly declare or think that God's  will has the same meaning in these two passages.?  The 1st passage is God's  revealed will and the 2nd is His secret will.  The first passage  concerns OUR duty our responsibilities. The second passage declares that God's secret purpose is immutable and must come to pass in spite of our insubordination.
We will never be able to do Gods revealed will perfectly or fully but His secret will, will never fail to be accomplished.
His secret will is His eternal, unchanging, purpose concerning everything He has created.  These things will be brought about by certain ways of accomplishing their appointed ends.  God declares,

"My counsel shall stand, and I will do my pleasure" (Isaiah 46:10)

This is the absolute, efficacious will of God; always effective and always fullfilled.
Whatever God has decided within Himself, whether he does this by Himself, through others or permits it to be done and as long as it is within his own attributes and not revealed by divine intervention, precept or prophecy, it is His secret will.  These are the counsels of His mind and are unfathomable  to us as His creatures.
God's  will of decree is not His will in the same sense as His will of command.  Therefore there is no difficulty in supposing that one may be contrary to the other, His will, in both senses is His inclination.  Everything that concerns His revealed will is perfectly agreeable to His nature like when He commands love, obedience and service from us.  But His secret will concerns His ultimate goal or His ultimate end which all things are now working.  He has decreed the entrance of sin into the universe, though His own holy nature hates sin infinitely,  yet because it is one of the means by which His appointed ends is to be reached, He has allowed it to enter.
Gods revealed will is a matter of our responsibilities and the determined of our duty.  We have nothing to do with His secret will because these are of His concern alone.  Tho His secret will is unknown to us, His secret wills are unconsciously fullfilled in and through us.
What a mighty and sovereign God full of grace we have that has made known to us the fulfillment of salvation and His eternal plan.  His revealed will, He has gracefully given.  His secret or decretive will is His alone.  We can only pray we use His revealed will to obey and glorify His holy name.
My studies and understanding of Gods will are contributed to RC Sproul, AW Pink and reformed theology..thank you for your time


Was the Mosaic Covenant a covenant of "works" or "grace"? In Exodus 20 (but all of Exodus/Leviticus/Numbers/Deuteronomy as well) we read of what many refer to as the Mosaic Covenant - enacted at Sinai, where God gives the Ten Commandments (and later the rest of the moral/ceremonial/civil law) to Israel.

At first glance, this seems to be a law covenant - after all, it's Ten Commandments, but when we consider the gracious aspects of the sacrifices and the understanding of the "three uses of the law" as under grace, it gets confusing.

So what's the nature and implication of this covenant? Is it a "law", bilateral covenant, like the Covenant of Works in the garden with Adam? Or is it a unilateral, "grace" covenant like the Covenant of Grace to Adam through Christ?

Does it matter?

It's not quite right to emphasize commandments. They are the Ten Words (dabar in Hebrew). They express so much more than mere commands.

For example, this law that God establishes, these "commandments" and statutes and rules that He gives are founded on the fact that He has already saved His people. We see this in the giving of the law on Sinai.

  “I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.”

And we see the same reason given by God as instruction for the covenant children in Deuteronomy 6

  “When your son asks you in time to come, ‘What is the meaning of the testimonies and the statutes and the rules that Yahweh our God has commanded you?’ then you shall say to your son, ‘We were Pharaoh’s slaves in Egypt. And Yahweh brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand. And Yahweh showed signs and wonders, great and grievous, against Egypt and against Pharaoh and all his household, before our eyes. And he brought us out from there, that he might bring us in and give us the land that he swore to give to our fathers. And Yahweh commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear Yahweh our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as we are this day. And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us.’

The gospel comes first, then the law. Why? It’s not so God can say, “I saved you and now you owe me” or ”I brought you out of Egypt so I can keep my thumb on you.” It’s God saying, “I’ve set you free from this bondage, this slavery to sin – go and sin no more. Go and live in the freedom of the life I’ve given you.”

So, the law is grace because God is entering into covenant with His chosen people. Keeping the law was never merit - God has already shown His salvation. The "Covenant of Grace" we enjoy now is the same. Christ says, "Moses told you..., but I say..." He doesn't make the law less demanding. If anything, He makes it more so. But the law isn't meant to be a burden. It's a covenant relationship like marriage. "Don't cheat on your wife" isn't a difficult rule to follow for someone who loves his wife. It is absolutely necessary for a right marriage, but it is no burden. It is a security and a comfort to have the boundaries clearly established.


How did the practice of soliciting the prayers of dead saints originate? How did the practice of soliciting the prayers of dead saints originate? Did it start based on something in the bible? The apocrypha? A papal decree?

On a side note, which groups practice this type of prayer?

I am interested in the circumstances in which these types of prayers started. I do not intend to get answers regarding if or why/why not it is acceptable. There are other questions for those topics.

A cursory search of the Internet brought me this list of quotations from various patristic sources.
Summarized from this article: On the Intercession and Invocation of the Saints.

Righteous Job the Long-Suffering (1000 – 300 BC)
If there shall be an angel speaking for him . . . He shall have mercy
on him, and shall say: Deliver him, that he may not go down to
corruption" (Job xxxiii, 23).
Book of Tobit (~ 200 – 100 BC)
When thou didst pray with tears… I [Archangel Raphael] offered thy
prayer to the Lord. (Tobit xii, 12)
St. John the Evangelist (+101)
And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden
censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer
of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before
the throne of God. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the
saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel. (Apoc.,
viii, 3, 4)
St. Cyprian of Carthage (+258), writing to Pope Cornelius of Rome
Let us be mutually mindful of each other, let us ever pray for each
other, and if one of us shall, by the speediness of the Divine
vouchsafement, depart hence first, let our love continue in the
presence of the Lord, let not prayer for our brethren and sisters
cease in the presence of the mercy of the Father.[iv]
St. Hilary of Poitiers (+368)
To those who would fain stand, neither the guardianship of saints nor
the defences of angels are wanting.[v]
St. Ephraim the Syrian (+373)
Remember me, ye heirs of God, ye brethren of Christ, supplicate the
Saviour earnestly for me, that I may be freed though Christ from him
that fights against me day by day.[vi]
Ye victorious martyrs who endured torments gladly for the sake of the
God and Saviour; ye who have boldness of speech towards the Lord
Himself; ye saints, intercede for us who are timid and sinful men,
full of sloth, that the grace of Christ may come upon us, and
enlighten the hearts of all of us that so we may love him.[vii]
St. Athanasius the Great, Patriarch of Alexandria (+373)
Christ became man that men might become gods[viii]
“In one of his letters, St. Basil [the Great] explicitly writes that
he accepts the intercession of the apostles, prophets and martyrs, and
he seeks their prayers to God. (Letter 360) Then, speaking about the
Forty Martyrs, who suffered martyrdom for Christ, he emphasizes that
they are common friends of the human race, strong ambassadors and
collaborators in fervent prayers. (Chapter 8)
“St. Gregory of Nyssa asks St. Theodore the Martyr …to fervently pray
to our Common King, our God, for the country and the people (Encomium
to Martyr Theodore).
“The same language is used by St. Gregory the Theologian in his
encomium to St. Cyprian. St. John Chrysostom says that we should seek
the intercession and the fervent prayers of the saints, because they
have special "boldness" (parresia), before God. (Gen. 44: 2 and
Encomium to Julian, Iuventinus and Maximinus, 3).”[ix]
St. Basil the Great, of Caesarea in Asia Minor (+379)
According to the blameless faith of the Christians which we have
obtained from God, I confess and agree that I believe in one God the
Father Almighty; God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost; I
adore and worship one God, the Three. I confess to the economy of the
Son in the flesh, and that the holy Mary, who gave birth to Him
according to the flesh, was Mother of God. I acknowledge also the holy
apostles, prophets, and martyrs; and I invoke them to supplication to
God, that through them, that is, through their mediation, the merciful
God may be propitious to me, and that a ransom may be made and given
me for my sins. Wherefore also I honour and kiss the features of their
images, inasmuch as they have been handed down from the holy apostles,
and are not forbidden, but are in all our churches.[x]
We beseech you, O most holy martyrs, who cheerfully suffered torments
and death for his love, and are now more familiarly united to him,
that you intercede with God for us slothful and wretched sinners, that
he bestow on us the grace of Christ, by which we may be enlightened
and enabled to love him.[xi]
O holy choir! O sacred band! O unbroken host of warriors! O common
guardians of the human race! Ye gracious sharers of our cares! Ye
co-operators in our prayer! Most powerful intercessors![xii] Liturgy
of St. Basil the Great
By the command of Thine only-begotten Son we communicate with the
memory of Thy saints . . . by whose prayers and supplications have
mercy upon us all, and deliver us for the sake of Thy holy name which
is invoked upon us.[xiii]
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (+386)
We then commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us,
first, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, that God, by their
prayers and intercessions, may receive our petitions.[xiv]
St. Gregory the Theologian, Patriarch of Constantinople; of Nazianzus in Asia Minor (+389)
Mayest thou [Cyprian] look down from above propitiously upon us, and
guide our word and life; and shepherd [or shepherd with me] this
sacred flock . . . gladdening us with a more perfect and clear
illumination of the Holy Trinity, before Which thou standest.[xv]
St. Gregory of Nyssa in Lower Armenia (+395-400)
...I wish to commemorate one person who spoke of their noble testimony
because I am close to Ibora, the village and resting place of these
forty martyrs' remains. Here the Romans keep a register of soldiers,
one of whom was a guard ordered by his commander to protect against
invasions, a practice common to soldiers in such remote areas. This
man suffered from an injured foot which was later amputated. Being in
the martyrs' resting place, he earnestly beseeched God and the
intercession of the saints. One night there appeared a man of
venerable appearance in the company of others who said, "Oh soldier,
do you want to be healed [J.167] of your infirmity? Give me your foot
that I may touch it." When he awoke from the dream, his foot was
completely healed. Once he awoke from this vision, his foot was
restored to health. He roused the other sleeping men because he was
immediately cured and made whole. This men then began to proclaim the
miracle performed by the martyrs and acknowledged the kindness
bestowed by these fellow soldiers…. We who freely and boldly enter
paradise are strengthened by the [martyrs'] intercession through a
noble confession in our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever
and ever. Amen.[xvii]
Do thou, [St. Ephraim the Syrian] that art standing at the Divine
altar, and art ministering with angels to the life-giving and most
Holy Trinity, bear us all in remembrance, petitioning for us the
remission of sins, and the fruition of an everlasting kingdom.[xviii]
St. Ambrose of Milan (+397)
May Peter, who wept so efficaciously for himself, weep for us and turn
towards us Christ's benignant countenance.[xix]
St. Jerome, b. Dalmatia, d. Palestine (+419)
If the Apostles and Martyrs, while still in the body, can pray for
others, at a time when they must still be anxious for themselves, how
much more after their crowns, victories, and triumphs are won! One
man, Moses, obtains from God pardon for six hundred thousand men in
arms; and Stephen, the imitator of the Lord, and the first martyr in
Christ, begs forgiveness for his persecutors; and shall their power be
less after having begun to be with Christ? The Apostle Paul declares
that two hundred three score and sixteen souls, sailing with him, were
freely given him; and, after he is dissolved and has begun to be with
Christ, shall he close his lips, and not be able to utter a word in
behalf of those who throughout the whole world believed at his
preaching of the Gospel? And shall the living dog Vigilantius be
better than that dead lion?[xx]
St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople; b. Antioch, Syria (+407)
When thou perceivest that God is chastening thee, fly not to His
enemies . . . but to His friends, the martyrs, the saints, and those
who were pleasing to Him, and who have great power [parresian,
"boldness of speech"].[xxi]
He that wears the purple, laying aside his pomp, stands begging of the
saints to be his patrons with God; and he that wears the diadem begs
the Tent-maker and the Fisherman as patrons, even though they be
dead.[xxii]
St. Augustine of Hippo, in North Africa (+430)
At the Lord's table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that
we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that
they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps.[xxiii]

One would expect the Masoretic Old Testament to have little support for prayer requests to the dead, as opposed to prayer requests for the dead, since (is this correct?) the notion of resurrection was a later introduction to Judaism in preparation for the coming of Christ. Indeed, the Psalmist declares

For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks? (Psalm 6:5)

and

Wilt thou shew wonders to the dead? shall the dead arise and praise thee? Selah.
Shall thy lovingkindness be declared in the grave? or thy faithfulness in destruction?
Shall thy wonders be known in the dark? and thy righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?
(Psalm 88:10-12)

Indeed death held illimitable dominion over all, even the righteous, before the glorious victory of our Lord Jesus. But now even (or especially) Christian children spit upon death as upon a miscreant pilloried, or better, a great foe vanquished and made impotent. Death is now (among other things) an entrance into new life, life in Christ.
I suspect the main basis for this practice is that "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." After doing the work of God (viz. liturgy, specifically communing) at the tombs of the martyrs (or today, celebrating the liturgy upon the relics of saints), it is not farfetched to give death the finger by submitting prayer requests to these "dead," now made alive in Christ Jesus (presuming they've made it there). Indeed, the revelation of John tells us that departed saints continue to pray; it is then not farfetched to hope that they might hear our petitions and pray for what we ask. Indeed, now that they are truly baptized with the baptism with which He has been baptized, it's that much more easy to ask them to intercede for us than it is to ask those still in the flesh to pray for us. Petitioning the saints comes from knowledge in the Spirit that they will know what we ask, and pray for us accordingly.
Assuredly, however, a more detailed and specifically history/archaeology-based answer to your question would be more appropriate than such speculation. I hope the list above is helpful.
This all represents my understanding of the practice of veneration of and petitioning to the saints who have died, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian.


According to personalism, is political libertarianism compatible with the Golden Rule? This question poses a conflict between two philosophies, but is not meant to necessarily compare their strengths.  Only if Love of Neighbor is indeed the antithesis of the libertarian philosophy.

Libertarianism as I understand it (from reading lots and lots of Robert Heinlein Sci Fi) is the idea that laws should be crafted so that personal liberties are always acknowledged.  So long as you don't hurt anyone else, whatever you do is OK.  Drugs, Sex etc... are legally OK, but it's not advocated in any way leaving a person in a state to excercise their freewill and follow God in their own way. The other side of it is TANSTAAFL (Their ain't no such thing as a free lunch) which is pretty bibilical (If they will not work, neither shall they eat) in the end of 2 Thessalonians).

Personalism as I understand it (from listening to lots and lots of Catholic radio and reading John Paul II's Love and Responsibility) says that, A person is an entity towards which the only reasonable attitude is love, as an extrapolation of the 2nd greatest commandment and the Golden Rule.  Therefore, if you consider yourself a person, then you ought treat others as you want to be treated and you shouldn't do things to yourself that you wouldn't do to others.

So, as far as I can see it, it is pretty difficult to reconcile the two ethics.  According to personalism, is there some depth into libertarianism that a Christian can delve, and then they need to pull up and get a breath of fresh air, or should it just be totally avoided?

When I hear Libertarians talking about how each person's only responsibility is to themselves, I tend to think of Cain. When God asked him where his murdered brother was, he flippantly responded, "Am I my brother's keeper?" (It's not my responsibilty to look after him! He ought to take care of himself!) I don't think most Christians would consider him good company to be in.

Jesus's famous "new commandment" was to "love one another as I have loved you," and the way he loved us was to give of himself at every opportunity, even unto laying down his life for us.  And James condemned those who saw others in need and did nothing to help them, saying that their faith was "dead" and could not save them.

Contrast this with the doctrine of Ayn Rand, probably the single most influential philosopher in Libertarian thought. She taught that the highest moral duty is rational egoism, and that altruism and social responsibility are not only not required, but actually evil and inherently harmful to society!

Like any philosophy, libertarianism has some good points, but on the whole it's principles are strongly opposed to the teachings of the Gospel, and it ought to be avoided if not actively opposed by disciples of Christ.


Epiphanius: where does he describe Indians as the descendants of Abraham and Keturah? The Austrian Carmelite Paulinus a Sancto Bartholomaeo in his book "Darstellung der Brahmanisch-Indischen Götterlehre, Religionsgebräuche und bürgerliche Verfassung" (1797) states that Epiphanius was the first writer to link the Brahmins of India with the children of Abraham and his concubine Keturah (Genesis 25:1-4; 1 Chronicles 1:32-33), an identification later appearing in the Zohar (13th century), Guillaime Postel (16th century), and Manasseh ben Israel (17th century) (as well as Newton, Voltaire and others).

I have been unable to locate his source in Epiphanius' (or in other patristic) writings. Does anyone know where Epiphanius says this?

The idea that Epiphanius claimed the people of India were descendant from Abraham and Keturah appears to be derived from a conflation of two passages.

In De Fide, 12.5 he writes:

  But again, I omit the names of many other mysteries, heresiarches and fomenters of schism whose leaders are called Magusaeans by the Persias but prophets by the Egyptians, and who preside over their shrines and temples.  And those Babyloanian magi who are called Gazarenes, sages and enchanters, and the Indians' Evilei so-called, and Brahmans, and the Greek's heirophants and temple custodians, and a throng of Cynics, and the leaders of countless other philosophers.

This is actually a list of mystics of which the Brahmans are one.  However, it would easy to misread the passage as equating the magi with the Indians. (The Greek of the passage is difficult to understand, I'm told.)

In De Fide, 7.6, 8.1 Epiphanius writes:

  But Abraham's gifts to Keturah's children were wealth - gold, silver, clothing, and whatever Abraham secretly hid in their wallets, the "frankincense, myrrh and gold" ...  The children of Abraham by Keturah were cast out by Abraham, and settled in Magodia in Arabia.  The same gifts were offered to Christ in Bethlehem by the magi who came from their land and, when they seen the star and come, offered presents and gifts in order to share in the same hope.

Epiphanius has tied the magi of Matthew 2 to the descendants of Abraham through Keturah.  However, he has not said they came from India, but rather "Magodia" in Arabia.  As near as I can tell, this term does not occur outside of Epiphanius in extant works, and in any case its identity has been lost. However, it is clearly not in India.

In conclusion, Epiphanius does not say the Brahmans descended from Keturah.  It was apparently via a misunderstanding of De Fide 12.5, combined with what Epiphanius actually writes in 8.1, that Paulinus got the idea.


Does Catholic doctrine teach that atheists go to heaven, too? The following is taken from the following article: Pope Says Atheists Are A-OK By God.

  Referencing a passage from the Gospel of Mark in his homily, the Pope
  recounted the story of a priest who told an inquiring Catholic that
  Jesus redeemed everyone, even atheists, and all he asks in return is
  that people "do good and do not do evil."

  "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ:
  all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone!" the Pope quoted the priest
  as saying.

  "Father, the atheists?," the skeptical Catholic responded. "Even the
  atheists. Everyone!" the priest replied, and added: "We must meet one
  another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’
  But do good: we will meet one another there."

  The Guardian notes that Pope Francis's ongoing efforts to unite all
  people, both believers and nonbelievers, stands in stark contrast to
  approach of his predecessors — particularly Benedict, "who sometimes
  prompted complaints from non-Catholics that he seemed to see them as
  second-class believers."

  Catholic Online has already embraced the newly christened Pope's
  message, taking it a step further by declaring that atheists can "go
  to heaven too."

Is universal reconciliation now the official belief in Catholicism?

The short answer is No.

The misconception that Pope Francis has in any way changed Church teaching or turned us into universalists was explicitly addressed by quite a few Catholic bloggers recently. In particular, Fr. Dwight Longenecker states states it like this:

  Unfortunately for those who wish to paint Pope Francis as a lovable
  liberal, in fact, the Pope is simply affirming certain truths that any
  somewhat knowledgable Catholic will uphold. First, that Christ died to
  redeem the whole world. We can distinguish his redemptive work from
  the acceptance of salvation. He redeemed the whole world. However,
  many will reject that saving work. In affirming the universality of
  Christ’s redemptive work we are not universalists. To say that he
  redeemed the whole world is not to conclude that all will be saved.

The Catholic Church, not unlike other Christian groups, has always taught that Christ's redemption is for all. It's always taught that the "Mystical Church" extends beyond the visible Church. And while the visible Church is the "normal means" for salvation, God is not limited by those means.

To be clear, atheism is still a sin according to the Catholic Church — and always will be. But, all of us are sinners. And the best any of us can do is continually re-submit ourselves to God. The "gotcha" that the Pope may have intended to highlight is simply that God is big, transcendent, and mysterious: He doesn't operate exclusively under the name of "God."

Even within the scope of scripture and Catholic literature, God is known by a lot of names, each of which tends to arise for the purpose of meeting sinners "where they are." An atheist may be averse to "God" so-called by Christians because of our hypocrisies, not realizing that our God (Christ) and their Truth, Source, Life, or Love are alluding to the same being.

The role of the Church is not to condemn. It's to continually recognize the truthiness and goodness already in people and draw them deeper into truth. This is exemplified by Paul in Acts 17:22-34, wherein he recognizes and elaborates on a single shred of truth the Athenians confess, the idol to "an unknown god."

And it's important to remember, we're all on a truth spectrum. None of us, presumably, are living in a state of complete knowledge or complete ignorance. According to Catholic theology, it's less important where we are on the spectrum than it is in which direction we're actively trending.


Which translation of Augustine's Confessions is the easiest to read in English? Not all translations are created equal, and often the public domain ones freely available online are some of the worst.

Augustine fans out there – whose translation of Confessions is the best in English? I'm looking for readability (out-loud or otherwise) here, not necessarily technical accuracy.

Here are the English translations that I'm aware of (I doubt this is a complete list):

E.B. Pusey (1838) In Public Domain, free online at Project Gutenberg
J.G. Pilkington (1886), free online at www.newadvent.org
F.J. Sheed (1948)
Albert C. Outler (1955), free online at www.ccel.org
John K. Ryan (1960)
Maria Boulding (1997)
Hal M. Helms (2010)
Pusey translation revised by Cormac Burke (2012), free online www.cormacburke.or.ke
Benignus O'Rourke (2013)

Here are four excerpts from different translations, all from the first few sentences of Book I, Chapter 3:

Pusey:

  Do the heaven and earth then contain Thee, since Thou fillest them? or
  dost Thou fill them and yet overflow, since they do not contain Thee?
  And whither, when the heaven and the earth are filled, pourest Thou
  forth the remainder of Thyself? or hast Thou no need that aught
  contain Thee, who containest all things, since what Thou fillest Thou
  fillest by containing it?

Burke:

  Do the heaven and earth then contain You, since You fill them? or do
  You fill them and yet overflow, since they do not contain You? And
  whither, when the heaven and the earth are filled, pour You forth the
  remainder of Yourself? or have You no need that aught contain You, who
  contain all things, since what You fill You fill by containing it?

Boulding:

  So then, if you fill heaven and earth, does that mean that heaven and
  earth contain you? Or, since clearly they cannot hold you, is there
  something of you left over when you have filled them? Once heaven and
  earth are full, where would that remaining part of you overflow? Or
  perhaps you have no need to be contained by anything, but rather
  contain everything yourself, because whatever you fill you contain,
  even as you fill it?

O'Rourke:

  Do heaven and earth contain you, then, since you fill them? or do you
  fill them, and is there something of you left over because they are
  not able to contain you? If so, where else do you pour the rest of
  your being, when heaven and earth are filled? Or is it that nothing
  can contain you, because you contain everything and fill everything?

My initial impression is that Boulding sounds the most contemporary and in many regards is "easier to read," but perhaps it is weak in other areas. Sheed seems to be a very close second (and superior in other regards).  The book reviews on Amazon rarely address the translation, so I'm asking here.

If I were, for some strange reason, compelled against my will to read Confessions aloud before a crowd, I would choose F. J. Sheed’s translation.

In my mind, Sheed not only sufficiently translates the originals into English, but also does the best job with the electrifying high poetry of Augustine's writing.

For example, compare Sheed’s translation of Book I, Chapter III with the examples in the body of your question:

  But if you fill heaven and earth, do they contain you? Or do you fill
  them, and yet have much over since they cannot contain you? Is there
  some other place into which that overplus of You pours that heaven and
  earth cannot hold? Surely You have no need of any place to contain You
  since You contain all things, and fill them indeed precisely by
  containing them.

Notice that, unlike the other more technical translations, the last sentence in the above excerpt is molded into an imperative sentence rather than an interrogative.  This appears to be a subtly significant attempt to convey both the theological, as well as the emotional dynamism that St. Augustine is canonically known for. This also breaks up the monotony of questions by giving some intelligible credit to a philosophical giant such as Augustine.

When reading Sheed’s translation of Confessions (as well as his other works) I often catch myself reading the passages with a sort of rhythm, almost like I’m reading one of C. S. Lewis’ works of poetry. It combines just the right amount of the post-Elizabethan, King James-ish English with a more modern Chesterton-like prose, both of which I am truly fond of.

Here I have loosely rearranged a passage of Sheed’s translation in order to illuminate the rhythmic structures of sentences that help me to stay zeroed in on what Augustine is actually saying:

  And if You are already in me,

  Since otherwise I should not be,

  Why do I cry to You,

  To enter into me?

  Even if I were in Hell You would be there,

  For if I go down into Hell, Thou art there also.

  Thus, oh God, I should be nothing,

  Utterly nothing,

  Unless you were in me,

  Or rather unless I were in you,

  Of whom and by whom and in whom,

  Are all things.

  Book I, Chapt. II

Sheed’s translation is thoroughly saturated with a kind of seamlessness, that of which other translations I have read (or have attempted to read) seem to lack.  As in all of his theological works, (which I very highly recommend every single one of them) Sheed does an incredible job of efficiently manipulating the English language into transporting eternally understandable truths to simple minds like mine.

Give Sheed a chance…you won’t regret it.


Is there a recognised soteriology that combines selective election for some and general election for everyone else? Are there any Christian groups or denominations that hold a belief in selective election to salvation, in that some individuals are specifically and irresistibly called (Noah, Moses, 12 desciples, Paul etc.) for a particular purpose, but that most people are generally called "resistibly" and can accept or reject the gospel of their own free will? Essentially, free will exists allowing people to resist God's grace if they choose, except a certain few which God does not give a choice.

As this came up in conversation, I believe the other party was trying to reconcile differences between Calvinist and Arminian doctrines on salvation. I'm trying to determine if there are any relatively mainstream Christian groups or denominations that hold this sort of belief.

Although I honestly do not know too much about Roman Catholicism, it would seem they believe in "selective election" or predestined salvation.

This is an excerpt from Wikipedia: Predestination

  Roman Catholicism

  Roman Catholicism teaches the doctrine of predestination, while
  rejecting the classical Calvinist view known as "double
  predestination." This means that while it is held that those whom
  God has elected to eternal life will infallibly attain it, and are
  therefore said to be predestined to salvation by God, those who
  perish are not predestined to damnation. But Catholicism has been
  generally discouraging to human attempts to guess or predict the
  Divine Will.

  The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Predestination says:

  God, owing to His infallible prescience of the future, has appointed
  and ordained from eternity all events occurring in time, especially
  those that directly proceed from, or at least are influenced by, man's
  free will.

I hope this helps!


Do Anglicans use Latin anymore? If so, how much and for what? Hi so I'm a Latin student and I was just wondering.

Anglicans do not use Latin for any form of normal worship service or for any normal purposes.

The 24th article of the foundational articles of the Anglican church states:

  It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church, to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people.

In other words, services should be in a language the people can understand. There are pretty much no communities where Latin is understood by most people. People who disagreed with this mostly left the Anglican church for the Roman church decades if not centuries ago.

The only exceptions I am aware of are when Choral Masses are sung as a service, particularly Requiem Masses, which use the Latin text.This only happens in churches with professional choirs.

Having said that, Latin is not entirely useless in the Anglican church. Many churches are old enough to have Latin inscriptions on the walls and windows, and some traditional prayers and psalms are still known by the first two words of their Latin version, for example "Venite, Exulatamus Domino", and some might still refer to the Lord's Prayer as "Paternoster".


What do Seventh Day Adventists believe about baptism? What are the Adventist's beliefs about the role of the Holy Spirit in baptism?

The fundamental belief of the Seventh-Day Adventist church on baptism states.

  Baptism is a symbol of our union with Christ, the forgiveness of our
  sins, and our reception of the Holy Spirit

https://www.adventist.org/en/beliefs/church/baptism/

Practically the baptism of the Holy Spirit and baptism for repentance can be separated. In regards to the baptism of the Holy Spirit Adventists do not expect a physical manifestation or 'charisma' experience to happen in the person and it is a much more personal experience in experiencing the presence of God in their life.  This experience often proceeds and is a catalyst for the water baptism.


Why do churches have steeples? What purpose do steeples serve? Are they put high up on church buildings as some sort of marketing tool so it can be seen from far away or is there some other reason(s)?

Interesting question.  I managed to find an article, The History of Church Steeples, that actually addresses this.

One reason:  It was simply an architectural style that happens to inspire us to look heavenward.

  These early church architects designed grand cathedrals and churches
  that had intricate, soaring steeples. The vertical lines of the
  steeple helped to visually enhance the lines of the church, directing
  the viewers' eyes vertically to the heavens. Obviously, this
  verticality complements part of the mission of the church, to keep us
  in a heavenly frame of mind, but from an architectural standpoint,
  this vertical lift gives the architecture a more graceful and pleasing
  look. The shorter the building, the more squat the appearance; the
  taller the building, the more graceful it becomes. The early church
  believed that the church could communicate the truth of the Bible in
  pictures and symbols to those who were illiterate, such as using the
  picture in the stained glass to tell stories, as well as the steeple,
  which helped by pointing upwards devotedly to Heaven. Therefore, the
  steeple has a dual role in that it helps the congregant in his or her
  spiritual mindset, and the steeple also helps the architect with a
  design feature that enhances the overall harmony of the architecture.

In short, there's no doctrinal significance, or symbolic other than the pointing to the Heavens. It's simply a beautiful style that, once done, was imitated throughout the ages until it became expected.


What if Hell isn't a punishment? If Hell isn't a punishment but instead the logical consequence of our rejection of God, if God doesn't send us to Hell, but we choose to go there on our own; how can Jesus' death on the Cross help us get out of Hell?
If the way out of Hell is to love God again, then I can do that with or without Jesus. If Hell's door is locked from the inside, I can unlock it myself without any help from Jesus. If rejection of God comes from me, and repentance comes from me, why do I need Jesus for anything? I can just repent and return to God on my own.
If I go to Hell because God is giving me infinite punishment for an infinite sin, then I can see that I need Jesus to pay the penalty I can't pay for myself. But if I'm headed for Hell because I don't love God, then Jesus can't help me love God again. That has to come from me, not anyone else. Right?

In order to perceive the things of the kingdom of God and enter into that kingdom one must be born again of the spirit.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” - John 3:3-8

The nature that each person is born with on the natural level is a disposition of enmity with God.  That nature fully directs all thoughts, intentions, and actions until it's power is broken by spiritual rebirth.  Therefore it is not possible for those who are in the flesh (only) to please God.

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8

It is not merely forgiveness for things that we have done which Christ has acquired for us but he has redeemed us from the law of sin and death.  He has opened the way for us to receive a new nature which cries "Abba, Father".  The access point is to see oneself a spiritual beggar, entirely bereft of merit or ability, entirely enslaved by a sinful disposition and to call on the name of the Lord pleading with Him to trade places with us.  Pleading with Him to come down from the cross and live in us while our old sinful nature is crucified with Him.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. - John 3:14-15

This is pointing back to Numbers 21.  The Israelites grumbled (yet again).  God sent fiery serpents among them and those bitten would die.  Moses pleaded with God for mercy.  God told Moses to make a bronze serpent and put it on a pole.  Whoever was bitten would live if they looked at the serpent.  Jesus said He would be lifted up in the same way.
Question:  Since Moses lifted up an image of what was killing the Israelites, How then is Jesus lifted up on the cross an image of what is killing us?
Answer:  Jesus is the Word of God made into flesh and he hung on a cross crucified by men.  In the garden of Eden Adam put God's word to death within himself when he agreed with the temptation "In the day you eat of it you shall be like God, knowing good and evil" and we are all born the same.  The Word of God is dead in us from birth.  This is what we are meant to understand about ourselves when we "see" Christ on the cross:  the Word of God put to death by Man.  The Word of God in the flesh...dead.  Ourselves.
It is a seeing of faith.  We cannot approach God but by that way which He has decreed.

And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” - Numbers 21:8


Does the blessing of Genesis 12:3 extend to Palestine or is it only for Israel (and the church as the spiritual Israel)? I was reading 12:3 and I started to wonder whether or not that blessing was for Palestinians too, as descendants of Abraham. Thank you.

Does the blessing of Genesis 12:3 extend to Palestine or is it only for Israel?
The Bible quite clearly shows the Genesis 12:3 blessing being passed along for several generations, bypassing the ancestors of the Palestinians.
God did provide their ancestors with blessings, but not the specific blessing of Genesis 12:3, which was the beginning of the old covenant.

Modern Palestinians are Arabs, descended from Abraham's son Ishmael (Ishmaelites - Wikipedia).
God told Abraham to pass his blessing on to his second son, Isaac, not to his son Ishmael.  God provided a separate blessing for Ishmael:

And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
— Genesis 17:19,20

The Covenant that God made with Abraham was passed to Isaac, not to Ishmael, and so not to the ancestor nations of today's Palestinians.
Similarly, Isaac passed the blessing on to his son Jacob, not to his eldest son Esau, who had sold his right to the blessing to Jacob:

And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob.
— Genesis 25:33

Esau (also known as Edom - Wikipedia, possibly the ancestor of modern Turks) also received a blessing, but it was a different blessing (Gen 27:38), not part of Abraham's covenant with God.
Later, because of Reuben's transgression, Jacob (Israel) passed the spiritual blessing to his son Judah, and the physical blessing to his son Joseph, rather than to his eldest son Reuben:

Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright. For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph's)
—  1 Chronicles 5:1

Centuries later, when the kingdom split into two, the Jews (Judea, descendants of Judah) retained the spiritual blessing (the Messiah would come from them), while the name "Israel" went with Joseph's sons:

The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
…
The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.
— Genesis 49:10,26


What is the difference between Magisterial teaching and Sacred Tradition in Roman Catholicism? In an answer to another question, @PeterTurner wrote:

  Good answers from a Catholic perspective should be able to stand on all three legs of Sacred Scripture, Magisterial teaching and Sacred Tradition

What is the difference between the last two items, and can an example of each be given?

As Peter pointed out the Church's authority rests upon Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial teaching/interpretation.
Apostolic Tradtion is the root source of Christian revelation. Christ entrusted the message of salvation and doctrinal authority to the Apostles, who in turn handed Christ's revelation through apostolic succession (a.k.a. Sacred Tradition).
The CCC defines Tradition:

THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION
75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire
Revelation of themost high God is summed
up, commanded the apostles to preach the
Gospel, which had been promised
beforehand by the prophets, and which he
fulfilled in his own person and promulgated
with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel,
they were to communicate the gifts of God
to all men. This Gospel was to be the source
of all saving truth and moral discipline."
In the apostolic preaching. . .
76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the
Gospel was handed on in two ways:
orally "by the apostles who handed on, by
the spoken word of their preaching, by the
example they gave, by the institutions they
established, what they themselves had
received - whether from the lips of Christ,
from his way of life and his works, or
whether they had learned it at the
prompting of the Holy Spirit";
in writing "by those apostles and other men
associated with the apostles who, under the
inspiration of the same Holy Spirit,
committed the message of salvation to
writing".
. . . continued in apostolic succession
77 "In order that the full and living Gospel
might always be preserved in the Church the
apostles left bishops as their successors.
They gave them their own position of
teaching authority." Indeed, "the
apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a
special way in the inspired books, was to be
preserved in a continuous line of succession
until the end of time."
78 This living transmission, accomplished in
the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is
distinct from Sacred Scripture, though
closely connected to it. Through Tradition,
"the Church, in her doctrine, life and
worship, perpetuates and transmits to every
generation all that she herself is, all that she
believes." "The sayings of the holy
Fathers are a witness to the life-giving
presence of this Tradition, showing how its
riches are poured out in the practice and life
of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."
79 The Father's self-communication made
through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains
present and active in the Church: "God, who
spoke in the past, continues to converse
with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the
Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of
the Gospel rings out in the Church -and
through her in the world - leads believers to
the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ
dwell in them in all its richness."  (CCC, Sect. 1, Chapt. 2, Para. 75-79)

The word Magisterium is just a fancy word for "teaching office." Magisterial teaching is guided by the Holy Spirit to accurately interpret both Tradition and Scripture. The Magisterium is necessary for Sacred Scripture to remain authoritative. Without an authoritative interpreter to interpret Scripture, then Scripture loses its authority. Any one could interpret it anyway they wish. Perhaps this is why there are thousands of denominations.  This is analogous to the necessity of the U. S. Judicial branch  interpreting the Constitution in order to prevent total anarchy that would result from the private interpretation of U. S. citizens. However, unlike the Judicial branch, the Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit.
The CCC also emphasizes the necessity of an authoritative interpreter to defend and protect the authority of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture:

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HERITAGE OF FAITH
The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church
84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the
depositum fidei),contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the
whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy
people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching
of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the
prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that
has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the
bishops and the faithful."
The Magisterium of the Church
85 "The task of giving an authentic
interpretation of the Word of God, whether
in its written form or in the form of
Tradition, has been entrusted to the living
teaching office of the Church alone. Its
authority in this matter is exercised in the
name of Jesus Christ." Thismeans that the
task of interpretation has been entrusted to
the bishops in communion with the
successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to
the Word of God, but is its servant. It
teaches only what has been handed on to it.
At the divine command and with the help of
the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly,
guards it with dedication and expounds it
faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as
being divinely revealed is drawn from this
single deposit of faith."
87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles:
"He who hears you, hears me", the
faithful receive with docility the teachings
and directives that their pastors give them
in different forms.
The dogmas of the faith
88 The Church's Magisterium exercises the
authority it holds from Christ to the fullest
extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when
it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian
people to an irrevocable adherence of faith,
truths contained in divine Revelation or also
when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths
having a necessary connection with these.
89 There is an organic connection between
our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas
are lights along the path of faith; they
illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely,
if our life is upright, our intellect and heart
will be open to welcome the light shed by
the dogmas of faith.
90 The mutual connections between dogmas,
and their coherence, can be found in the
whole of the Revelation of the mystery of
Christ. "In Catholic doctrine there exists
an order or hierarchy of truths, since they
vary in their relation to the foundation of
the Christian faith." (CCC, Sect. 1, Chapt. 2, Para. 84-90)

Tradition is the source of both Scripture and the Magisterium. The New Testament wasn't completed until the end of the 1rst cent., and wasn't canonized until the end of the 4rth. The Gospel was transmitted by Tradition and was interpreted by the Magisterium long before the canon was approved by Pope Damasus I. From then on the Church has been supported by those 3 legs.


Where is there official writings from Perpetua or Felicity? Supposedly there was a diary written by a woman named "Perpetua" just before she was killed in the arenas for her faith.

Another similar account is concerning Felicity.

Did these women actually write down anything authentic, and if so, where are their writings found?

I've found plenty of commentaries and history accounts, but no actual writing from them.

Do they have written accounts and where can they be found?

Such a thing would show the mind of a Christian during that time. Their views, thoughts, motives, etc, possibly distinct from modern Christians.

This site provides a copy of the purported prison diary written by Saint Perpetua, written around 203 CE. The diary forms part of the non-canonical Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas, also known as The Passion of St. Perpetua, St. Felicitas, and their Companions. It is a beautifully crafted story and many believe Perpetua and Felicity really existed and that Perpetua's diary is authentic, although it has been edited. Assuming its authenticity, Perpetua's original diary no longer exists.

There are two saints known as Felicity.  Saint Felicity (Felicitas) is a legendary martyr said to have lived in Rome between about 101 and 165 CE. This information comes from a sixth-century 'Acts', which may have been the first record of St. Felicity, as her name does not appear in the well-known fourth-century Roman calendar. Another legendary Saint Felicity was said to have been a slave of Perpetua, and both died as martyrs in Carthage in 203 CE.

In Ancient Fiction: The Matrix of Early Christian and Jewish Narrative (edited by Brant, Hedrick and Shea), pages 249-250, Dennis R. MacDonald discusses parallels between the the deaths of Perpetua and of Polyxena, which is narrated in Euripides' ancient story of Hecuba.  Thomas J. Heffernan, in The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity, page x, acknowledges there is much in the depiction of Perpetua that owes to earlier texts, and that it is purposely intended to parallel the heroism of Perpetua with that of Polyxena, but concludes there is a historical core to the story.


Is it accurate to call Abraham a Jew? It is common to associate Abraham as "father of the faith" and the first Jew.

However, since  Abram's family came from the land of Ur, isn't it more accurate to say that he wasn't a Jew but - in reality - a Babylonian that became a Jew because of his faith in God?

This is open for answer by all denominations. I would like to hear their thoughts on the matter.

The word “Jew” follows etymologically from the name “Judah”, Abraham’s great-great-grandson. Judah is Jacob’s fourth son and the fourth son of Jacob’s fist and less favored wife Leah. The second king of Biblical Israel is his descendent.
The first king was Saul, a descendent of Judah’s youngest brother Benjamin. But Saul sinned against Yahweh and while Saul was still king, he anointed David of Judah to be King of Israel by his prophet Samuel.
After David’s death, the kingdom of Israel split into two Kingdoms upon the succession of his grandson Rehoboam, the son of David’s son Solomon who built Yahweh’s temple in Jerusalem, though his Temple really resided in Solomon. The northern Kingdom retained the original name, Israel, and the Southern Kingdom was known as Judah. The Jews are judahites in that sense- cultural and ethnic successors of the southern kingdom. Both kingdoms were eventually lost to conquering empires.
Abraham was among the first people to practice what we would call the Jewish faith in earnest- monotheistic veneration of Yahweh, who he knew as El Shaddai, “Almighty God”, though not all of Abraham’s offspring are counted among his children according to the promise Yahweh made to him. Through much of the Biblical Narrative, Yahweh is called “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” It is not accurate to say he was the first Jew, since the name comes from his own offspring. It would be more appropriate to refer to him as the father of the Jews.


What is the nature of Dyothelitism according to the Council of Chalcedon? What is the nature of Dyothelitism according to the Council of Chalcedon?
At the Council of Chalcedon, the church taught that the Incarnate Lord Jesus Christ had two natures: divine and human, united in his one person (Hypostatic union), without mixing or blending them into one nature (Monophysitism). In this Christology, Jesus had two minds: divine mind and human mind (Dyothelitism).
My question is specifically asking about the nature of the Dyothelitism. The following sub questions are really helpful in navigating for an answer:

What is the relationship of the divine mind with the human mind?
When Jesus was incarnated, did he use his human mind primarily?
If so, how did Jesus access his divine mind? Is it like a memory being remembered?
Was Jesus operating in both human mind and divine mind simultaneously when he was on earth?

I am seeking answer from authoritative sources regardless of denomination. Preferrably those who believe in the Council of Chalcedon and Diothelitism. A Biblical answer is also acceptable as long as it can explain logically the nature of Dyothelitism.

The Definition produced by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 is an interesting text because it wasn't intended to stand alone; it was produced by people who knew well that they were part of a series of church councils stretching back over a century. So the Chalcedonian Definition endorses the 325 Nicene Creed, and it's 381 Constantinopolitan revision, as well as endorsing the 431 Council of Ephesus. This last council forbade any departures from the Nicene Creed, and so the Council of Chalcedon was careful not to say that it was producing a new creed, but instead a definition or statement that merely clarified the Nicene Creed. The Council of Chalcedon was called in order to unite a divided Christendom, so in addition to endorsing the previous Creeds, it also endorsed the letters of Cyril of Alexandria and the Tome of (Pope) Leo, in order to bring together the three major camps of Christianity of the era: Western, Antiochene, and Alexandrian.
The Tome of Leo is of particular interest to this question because it gives great clarity to the Chalcedonian Definition in a way that I hope will answer your questions. This is the relevant section:

There is nothing unreal about this oneness, since both the lowliness of the man and the grandeur of the divinity are in mutual relation. As God is not changed by showing mercy, neither is humanity devoured by the dignity received. The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence. [EWTN]

The Tome of Leo rules out monothelitism because rather than each nature acting and performing what is proper to itself, the divine will would be acting for both the divine and human. (Note that mono-/dyothelitism strictly refers to one/two wills, but the theological principles that lead us to understand that Christ had two wills apply equally to the mind.)
So on to your questions.

What is the relationship of the divine mind with the human mind?

So from the Chalcedonian Definition we understand that, as they are faculties of the natures, they must be "unconfused, unchanged, undivided, inseparable". From the Tome of Leo, we know that each nature exercises its faculties in communion with the other. And from the Third Council of Constantinople (which rejected monothelitism), we get a clearer picture of just how the two natures relate in general:

And the two natural wills not in opposition, as the impious heretics said, far from it, but his human will following, and not resisting or struggling, rather in fact subject to his divine and all powerful will. (Source)

When Jesus was incarnated, did he use his human mind primarily?
Was Jesus operating in both human mind and divine mind simultaneously when he was on earth?

The person we call Jesus is the Son of God who exists now in two natures, so we mustn't make the mistake of saying that "Jesus" refers just to the human nature. So the answer to question 2 is no and the answer to question 4 is yes: Jesus didn't primarily use his human mind; his divine nature thought exclusively with his divine mind, and his human nature thought exclusively with his human mind, both natures were united and acting together. Even if we think of the human mind as following and submitting to the divine mind, we cannot think of him therefore predominantly using his divine mind. Jesus was not a comatose body animated by the divine mind of God, but a complete living human who was the incarnate Son of God.

If so, how did Jesus access his divine mind? Is it like a memory being remembered?

I think this is where any answer will get more speculative, for I don't think the mechanisms of the communion of the two natures has been revealed to us with any great clarity. But there are several instances in the Gospels which show us some of the ways in which his natures worked together.
Several times the Gospels say that Jesus knew what other people were thinking (Matthew 9:4, 12:25, Luke 6:8, 9:47, 11:17). This kind of knowledge is outside the capabilities of a human, and so in these times we see, somehow, the communication of knowledge from the divine mind to the human mind.
There is at least one major case where the divine mind's knowledge is kept from Christ's human mind: the time of his return (Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32). More on that at this question/answer.
Another interesting case is when Jesus healed the woman who had been bleeding for twelve years (Matthew 9:20-22, Mark 5:25-34, Luke 8:43-48). I think his question "Who touched me?" is usually thought of as a rhetorical question, but is that necessarily true? Mark says Jesus "kept looking around" and Luke has Jesus quite adamantly respond to Peter that he knew he had been touched and power had gone out from him. I think it would be better to read this not as a rhetorical question from Christ's human nature which had been given omniscience by his divine nature, but instead the genuine question of a human man who for whatever reason was not at this time being given insight from his divine nature.
Lastly are the times when the human nature of Christ expressed emotions that are foreign to the divine nature: exhaustion (John 4:6), grief (John 11:33-35), anxiety and dread (Matthew 26:36-39, Luke 22:40-44). Perhaps even frustration (Matthew 16:5-11), if we think of the divine nature as having unlimited patience. In all of these times the divine nature could have intervened, to re-energise his human nature, to give comfort, to give patience. And no doubt the divine nature did just that at many times to various extents, but in these times the human nature was seemingly left without divine intervention to experience the troubles of human existence which he shares with us. But we must not think of the natures acting in discordance even in these times: even these times when divine power was not communicated to the human nature were times when the two natures of Christ were operating together with singular purpose, no doubt to reassure us that he can be our high priest because he is truly one of us (Hebrews 2:17-18.)


Early church writers opposed to the baptism of infants? In his book On Baptism, Chapter 18, "Of the Persons to Whom, and the Time When, Baptism is to Be Administered," Tertullian says

  According to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children.

Based on the arguments he uses for this, and the way he says it, he is not making a case against paedobaptism the way that credobaptists would now. Nevertheless, he clearly is not in favor of the practice.

People obviously interpret different authors different ways. However, I am wondering: are there any other early church writers who are clearly opposed to paedobaptism? In other words, I'm not looking for writings that could be interpreted as credobaptist, I'm looking for writings where paedobaptism is clearly spoken against, as in Tertullian.

110-165 AD Martyr

  As many as are persuaded and believe that what we
  teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly,
  are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the
  remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with
  them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are
  regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated.
  For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of
  our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the
  washing with water. For Christ also said, 'Except ye be born again, ye
  shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' Now, that it is
  impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their
  mothers' wombs, is manifest to all... And for this we have learned
  from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without
  our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were
  brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not
  remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the
  children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the
  remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who
  chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of
  God the Father and Lord of the universe.

  (Justin Martyr, "First Apology," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 183)

115-188 THEOPHILUS

  On the fifth day the living creatures which proceed from the waters
  were produced, through which also is revealed the manifold wisdom of
  God in these things; for who could count their multitude and various
  kinds? Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by
  God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive
  repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of
  regeneration, as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and
  receive blessing from God.

  (Theophilus, "To Autolycus,", Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pg. 101)

140-230 AD TERTULLIAN

  But they roll back an objection from that apostle himself, in that he
  said, 'For Christ sent me not to baptize;' as if by this argument
  baptism were done away! For if so, why did he baptize Gaius, and
  Crispus, and the house of Stephanas? However, even if Christ had not
  sent him to baptize, yet He had given other apostles the precept to
  baptize. But these words were written to the Corinthians in regard of
  the circumstances of that particular time; seeing that schisms and
  dissensions were agitated among them, while one attributes everything
  to Paul, another to Apollos. For which reason the 'peacemaking'
  apostle, for fear he should seem to claim all gifts for himself, says
  that he had been sent 'not to baptize, but to preach.' For preaching
  is the prior thing, baptizing the posterior. Therefore the preaching
  came first: but I think baptizing withal was lawful to him to whom
  preaching was.

  (Tertullian, "On Baptism," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pg. 676)

181 AD Theophilus of Antioch

  Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed
  by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future
  time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the
  bath of regeneration all who proceed to the truth and are born again
  and receive a blessing from God

  (To Autolycus 12:16).

There are probably a few more.


Does the fact that Joseph was a *tekton* require that Jesus was as well? I am not a scholar, but it always bothers me when preachers assume Jesus was a carpenter. And I've read the answers that project that his work was most likely in stone.

But, as I understand it, at the time of bar mitzvah, if the required memorization was not perfect then the boys were taught the trades of their fathers, like fishermen, craftsman, etc. And that if the lessons were perfect, the young man went on to higher learning. I don't know, it could be that the family business was also fit into the schedule, because families need to make a living, but I am curious if anyone knows what the culture was at that time?

There is much disagreement as to whether the word translated 'carpenter' in:

  Matthew 13:55  Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

and,

  Mark 6:3  Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

is properly translated or not. In my Interlinear copy that word is actuall in dout as to whether it is:

5045 [e]

tektonos

τέκτονος  ?

carpenter

N-GMS

or not, as you can see it is marked with a question mark.

In ancient days they were mostly known as builders, and were not as specialized as they are today. The word tektonos actually refers more to an artisan in wood more than what we consider Carpentry today. That is to say that that particular word is more descriptive of someone who carved wood rather than a builder. Builders were skilled in more than wood as stone was actually more common in buildings of that era. There is a common belief that the word originally used was:

τέκτων    tektōn

Thayer Definition:

1) a worker in wood, a carpenter, joiner, builder
1a) a ship’s carpenter or builder

2) any craftsman, or workman
2a) the art of poetry, maker of songs

3) a planner, contriver, plotter
3a) an author

Part of Speech: noun masculine.

If the original word was tekton rather than tektonos, it would explain Joseph's skill in both wood and stone. Many of the old manuscripts are not in very good shape due to the materials written on and the inks used, which are much less permanent than those of more modern times.

As for the term Rabbi it's connotations are much the same as our use of the word 'Pastor' today;

ῥαββί    rhabbi

Thayer Definition:

1) my great one, my honourable sir

2) Rabbi, a title used by the Jews to address their teachers (and also honour them when not addressing them)

Part of Speech: noun masculine.

In referring to Jesus it appears that is in reference to his teaching the meaning of the Scriptures:

  John 1:38  Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?

and:

  John 3:1 and 2 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:  2  The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation.

Hope this helps.


How could Jesus be born during the reign of Herod, and when Quirinius was governor of Syria, if those periods were not contemporary? In Matthew 2, it makes it clear that Jesus was conceived during the reign of Herod and was a young child when Herod died.

  After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.”

We know that Herod died in 4 BC, so we know that Jesus must have been born in 4 BC or shortly beforehand.

In Luke 2, it is made clear that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius

  In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to register. ...
  He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son.

Quirinius became governor of Syria and performed his census in 6 AD. From this we know that Jesus must have been born in 6 AD.

This is a nine year discrepancy between the time of Jesus' birth as recorded by Matthew and the time of Jesus' birth as recorded by Luke. How can these two accounts be reconciled?

This is a fairly common question, and there is a very good answer.  A detailed answer can be found here and here.  These are some of the highlights.

It is important to note that Luke mentions that the census to which he is referring is the first census taken while Quirinius was governing.  This seems to indicate that at the time of writing, the readers would need to distinguish between multiple censuses.  Luke specifies that this was the first one.

Additionally, the term used for the ruling of Quirinius in Luke is not specific to a certain position.  So, it's quite possible that he held one position at first and then was promoted to the specific position of governor and performed a census then as well.

So, linking the census mentioned by Josephus to this first census that took place when Quirinius was in a position of governing is uncertain at best.

Being 2,000 years removed from this, our historical data and understanding are certainly not what they would have been to first century readers of Luke's account.  It is doubtful that Luke would have created such a glaring inconsistency, and if there were one, the readers of that day would surely have raised objection to it and discounted the narrative.  Indeed, there were many in that day who would have loved to expose Christianity as false, if given the chance.

Still, there is ample evidence to resolve this apparent discrepency when we pull back from the assumption that there was only one census that must be connected between Josephus and Luke, and we also understand that Luke does not specify a particular position in mentioning the governance of Quirinius.


According to the Catholic Church, will we have physical bodies in heaven? I've heard and read that when we die, and we go to heaven, we won't have bodies. We'll be spirits only, but so happy that we won't need bodies or objects.

In School we were taught that when we go to Heaven, we can have everything we want. Now, that's not possible at all if we're only spirits, and there is no physical world (i.e. an Earth)
Doesn't the Bible talk about God's Kingdom, White horses and gates and pearls? I mean, what good is all of that if we can't touch/interact with it (remember, we won't have bodies)?

So this leads me to ask, does the Catholic church teach that we will have physical bodies in heaven?

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily
  condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world.
  Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can
  raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this
  reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to
  regard his body as good and to hold it in honour since God has
  created it and will raise it up on the last day

(emphasis mine)

Cathecism of the Catholic Church Paragraph 322 states that our bodies will be raised on the last day, so after that we will have bodies in heaven.


According to Protestantism, why are fallen angels motivated to attack Christians? During Bible study of Hebrews and 1 Corinthians I became aware how:

When we believers enter our glory we will be given authority over the angels like how Jesus currently IS already, although our status now (before glorification) is still a little lower than angels Heb 2:5-10
We will judge angels 1 Cor 6:1-6

I'm reminded how in C.S. Lewis's book The Screwtape Letters the devil so thoroughly despised the biped flesh and blood creature God created in His image that he and his minions are Hell-bent on destroying us (both unbelievers and believers alike) by whatever means necessary.  We also learned in the Bible that Lucifer and his followers were thrown by God from heaven to earth.  Why does the devil hates us so?  Putting all these threads together in light of our destiny to become higher than angels, one plausible theory is that they are jealous.

My question: According to Protestants, why are fallen angels motivated to attack Christians? Is it jealousy, or something else? If there is more than one answer given by Protestants, an overview of common Protestant explanations would be helpful.

Value of the question: Know your enemy. Christians of all stripes need to take the Devil seriously to prepare for defense based on reliable truth.

From a Protestant perspective, the biblical explanation for why why fallen angels are motivated to attack Christians is simple. Their motivation stems from knowing that their time is short, and they face judgment.

  1 Peter 5:8 says: “Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.”

  2 Peter 2:4 says: “God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment”.

  1 Corinthians 6:2-3 says “the saints will judge the world” and “we will judge angels”.

Other Bible verses teach that the fallen angels will be judged by God (Isaiah 24:21-22; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6; Revelation 21:10).

That’s why they are hell-bent on attacking God’s people, even though their efforts are futile.

The Bible tells us that the angels were created before the earth (Job 38:4-7) and that Satan fell before he tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden (Genesis 3:1-14).  At some later point, he was cast out of heaven.

  Isaiah 14:12-15: “How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How are you cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nations! For you have said in your heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet you shall be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.”

Jesus said, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Luke 10:18), and in Revelation Satan is seen as “a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth” (Revelation 9:1).  Since Satan is referred to as a star which fell or was cast down to earth  and Revelation 12:4 says a third of the stars were cast out with him, then the suggestion is that the stars in Revelation chapter 12 refer to fallen angels, fully one third of the heavenly host.

Revelation 12:17 describes how the dragon was enraged and went off to make war against “those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.”  Later, Satan is bound and thrown into the Abyss for the duration of the millennial reign of Christ on earth.  He is then released for a short while to make a final assault on God’s people before being thrown into the lake of burning sulphur, to be tormented day and night for ever and ever (Revelation 20:1-10).

Satan and all who follow him are not ignorant of what the Bible says about their final end.  That is why they are enraged and why, even at the end of the millennial reign of Christ, when Satan is released for a short time, they will wage war against God’s people.  Their motivation is hatred for God, for Christ Jesus and for all who follow Him.  What caused it was that initial rebellion against God, aspiring to overthrow God – see Isaiah 15:12-15 as quoted above.

I found an article from the Jewish Encyclopedia about The Book of Adam (by Louis Ginzberg) which starts out by saying “The Talmud says nothing about the existence of a Book of Adam...”  It continues:

  After God had created man, He ordered all the angels to prostrate themselves before Adam, but Satan rebelled against God's command, despite the direct bidding of Michael "to worship the image of YHW."

However, that does not answer your question as to what motivates the fallen angels to attack Christians.  After all, this apocryphal book does not concern itself with Christianity.  It concludes by suggesting the apocryphas of Mosis and the Vita are based on the Hebrew or Aramaic Book of Adam and that the latter belongs to the midrashic literature, as many of its allusions can only be explained by the Midrash.  Source: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/759-adam-book-of

I pay no heed to those extra-biblical sources that suggest God told all the angels to bow down and worship Adam.  Why would God tell his created angels to worship a created human when the Shema makes it very clear that God alone is to be worshipped?  Jesus himself quoted from Deuteronomy 6:4 (in Mark 12:28-30).  Hebrews 1:9 commands all God’s angels to worship his Son, not Adam.  Hmmm, I can feel a question coming on.....


What is the oldest hymn (with music) that is still sung in churches today? Using any of the standard hymnals, what is the oldest hymn that people are still singing?

For example:

The Baptist Hymnal 1975 / 1991 / 2008,
The Faith We Sing (Methodist, right?),
The (Episcopal) Hymnal 1982,
Adoremus (or anything else Catholics use)
or just about any standard denominational hymnal in current usage

Alternatively, I'll take anything on Hymnary.org, since my aim is to find old hymns while excluding extremely obscure ones that only appear, for example, in a random hymnal from the 1700s.

Let me strike out one answer real quick – yes, I know the Psalms is a Jewish hymnbook.  The problem that I have with including the Psalms in the scope of this question is that we don't have the music :)

I suspect somebody can find obscure hymns that are old, but I'm looking for old hymns that are still sung widely. Things like the Doxology, the Sanctus, or other parts of the Mass would be likely candidates: as long as the song is still sung widely, I'm fine with translations of the original lyrics, but I'd prefer that the original tune/music be at least known, if not used.

Please include the date of the text and the music, if you could.

E.g., "All Creatures of Our God and King",
words by Francis of Assisi (1200s),
tune is Lasst Uns Erfreuen, 1623.

Probably the oldest text you'll find is the Phos Hilaron, sometimes known as "Hail gladdening light".  The earliest music for it was a Byzantine Chant, and it's still largely sung in churches worldwide, though not so much in the West.

David Crowder released a version on his album "Church Music".

Hail, gladdening Light, of His pure glory poured

Phos Hilaron (Wikipedia)

AFAIK, that's the oldest Christian hymn known today.


Which denominations believe in eternal marriage? Which Christian denominations believe that marriage can be eternal, i.e. can continue in the next life?

Christian denominations that believe that human marriages are, or can be, eternal:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The General Church of the New Jerusalem (Swedenborgian)
The General Conference of the New Church (Swedenborgian - Great Britain)
The Lord's New Church Which Is Nova Hierosolyma (Swedenborgian)
The New Church in Australia (Swedenborgian)
The New Church of Southern Africa (Swedenborgian)
The Swedenborgian Church of North America


What are the biblical arguments that the Bible canon is closed? Some religions claim to have a newer revelation of God: the Book of Mormon and the Qur'an are presented to be the latest revelation of God.

The Old Testament closes with a climax of expectation of the Savior. The New Testament presents the Savior and finishes with his return. What are the biblical arguments that the canon is closed?

I do understand that Catholics include in the canon what protestants calls the Apocrypha, but I don't want to make a distinction about that in this question. Although, there is no need to quote out of these books to answer this question.

The problem with this question is that the Bible is not a single book, and as such does not directly address what "other books" are considered canon.

Peter, for instance, writes that Paul's books are highly profitable for reading, "even if they are sometimes hard to understand," but there is no book anywhere that says "these books are canon, these are not."

Indeed, the "closed canon" of the NT wasn't even recorded in its entirety until 367, when Athanasuis published his festal letter. This letter is merely a recommendation list, much like the NY Times best-seller list. It lists books which are "profitable" (see 1 Tim 3:16) for a Christian to read, but it merely reflects consensus, not dogma.

As such, there has only been common consensus as to what is canonical and what is not.  (This is also why it is downright silly for people to talk about "suppressed" books or "hidden gospels", because frankly there is no authority on what is or is not canonical.)

That said, for the NT, one of the "marks" of canonicity has been aposotolic authorship.  While scholars will tell you that Paul, for example, probably didn't write many of the "Pauline" letters (and never claimed to write Hebrews!), they were traditionally ascribed to apostles. (This is why Jude got in - apostolic claim).  Because the original 12 apostles are no longer writing, this avenue of new canon is pretty much closed.

One biblical admonition that is often cited is Rev 22:19,

  and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

This can't really be used for canonicity claims, however, since "this book" would only refer to Revelation itself - a completely separate work from the other 65.


What is the Catholic concept of grace? This question reminded me of a question I've had for a long time:  What is the Catholic concept of grace?
A look at the dictionary says:

grace [greys]
noun

favor or goodwill. Synonyms: kindness, kindliness, love, benignity; condescension.
a manifestation of favor, especially by a superior: It was only through the dean's grace that I wasn't expelled from school. Synonyms: forgiveness, charity, mercifulness. Antonyms: animosity, enmity, disfavor.
mercy; clemency; pardon: He was saved by an act of grace from the governor. Synonyms: lenity, leniency, reprieve. Antonyms: harshness.

I've always felt that #3 was the most relevant in the context of Christianity, but the way I have heard Catholics and Catholic literature speak about the topic, it seems there is a more specific, and almost "tangible" concept of grace (and graces) at work.
The above mentioned question uses the phrases ...the same graces... and But what graces are not conferred...?
As I'm accustomed to "the grace of God" being a singular (or perhaps mass) noun, the concept of "graces" confuses me.

For most Catholic questions there are two places to start:

Summa Theologica, by Thomas Aquinas
Catechism of the Catholic Church

So for this question I will use this from the CCC (#2)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm

And from Summa Theologica this:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2111.htm

So there are two types of graces that come from God through Christ and the Holy Spirit, to help heal our sin, to sanctify us:

Sanctifying grace is a habitual gift, a stable and supernatural
disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with
God, to act by his love.
Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping
with God's call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to
God's interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in
the course of the work of sanctification.

There are two other types of graces that are given by the Holy Spirit to help us to do God's will, which are a subdividing of the habitual grace from above:

There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different
sacraments.
There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the
Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning "favor," "gratuitous gift,"
"benefit." Whatever their character - sometimes it is
extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms
are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the
common good of the Church.

There are two types of grace, the first is a sanctifying grace which helps to unite us with God (#1 in the first group) and the second is a gratuitous grace, which allows someone to lead others to God (the second group).  This is gratuitous because, much as when Moses was told to lead, he suggested his brother (a better speaker) instead, but, because of God Moses was able to lead, to do more than he expected to do.

So, we look at the cross as an example, where there is a grace that goes between us and God (the vertical part) and the horizontal bar is where we are tied to each other, as we help each others to be with God, so the gift of God has two distinct part, and the RCC differentiates between them.

This leads to a discussion on the RCC's view on justification, but that is beyond the scope of this question, so I will end it here.


Did any medieval Catholics believe in the possibility the repentance was possible immediately after death? Did any medieval Catholics have a pious belief that immediately after death, God gave people a last chance to repent of their sins and thus save their immortal soul from going to hell for all eternity?

I recently came across the following tidbit about St. Padre Pio in which he affirmed his own belief that repentance immediately after death was possible.

  "I believe that not a great number of souls go to hell. God loves us so much. He formed us at his image. God loves us beyond understanding. And it is my belief that when we have passed from the consciousness of the world, when we appear to be dead, God, before He judges us, will give us a chance to see and understand what sin really is. And if we understand it properly, how could we fail to repent?" - Close encounters of a special kind with Padre Pio: The Souls in Purgatory, The Guardian Angel, the devil.

This got me thinking of what a priest that once told me some years ago: “Some Catholics in the Middle Ages (500 AD - 1500 AD) had a pious belief that immediately after sinners had died, Our Lord gave them a final chance to repent!”

The priest in question is no longer amongst us and I have never known him to state something like this erroneously.

Can anyone find any references from any Catholic sources about the possible existence of this pious belief during the Middle Ages?

John XXII (reigned 1316-1334) (in)famously held the opinion that one's particular judgment did not occur immediately after death. His successor Benedict XII (reigned 1334-1342) defined the following dogma in Benedictus Deus (1336):

  we define that according to the general disposition of God, the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin go down into hell immediately (mox) after death and there suffer the pain of hell.

Thus, those who die in a state of mortal sin do not have a chance to repent after death.

Now that this dogma has been defined, it's not a pious opinion but heresy to hold a contrary view.


What is the Immaculate Conception? Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception. What is that?

Is this the same as the virginal conception of Jesus?

The Immaculate Conception is not the same as the miraculous conception of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Mary: Mary was conceived (by her mother, Saint Anne) being full of sanctifying grace and free of any stain of original sin.

It does not refer to any of the following, which Catholics also uphold:

Mary's freedom from any personal sin
Mary's perpetual virginity
The virgin birth of Jesus
The virginal conception of Jesus (mentioned above)

From the Baltimore Catechism:

  Q. 268. Was any one ever preserved from original sin?
  A. The Blessed Virgin Mary, through the merits of her Divine Son, was preserved free from the guilt of original sin, and this privilege is called her Immaculate Conception.

  Q. 271. What does the "Immaculate Conception" mean?
  A. The Immaculate Conception means the Blessed Virgin's own exclusive privilege of coming into existence, through the merits of Jesus Christ, without the stain of original sin. It does not mean, therefore, her sinless life, perpetual virginity or the miraculous conception of Our Divine Lord by the power of the Holy Ghost.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  The Immaculate Conception

  490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role." The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace". In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

  491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

    The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

  492 The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son". The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".

  493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature". By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

The Immaculate Conception does not imply that Mary did not need redemption through her Most Holy Son, Jesus Christ.

The Immaculate Conception is an Article of Faith among Catholics.


What is the Catholic teaching on the use of animals? During a conversation on crocodile farming for production of meat and leather in the Third World, the person I was talking to found that it was cruelty against animals and that humans, in the 21st century, must rethink the animal condition.

Does the Catholic Church say anything about how we should use, consume or treat both domesticated animals like cattle, and wild animals?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2416: Animals deserve kindness as they are God's creation and under His care.

  Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417: Humans are charged with the stewardship of animals. Animals may be employed in just purposes.

  God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418: It is morally wrong to cause animals unneeded suffering.

  It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons

How these are applied to a specific situation can be debated and would likely involve pastoral advice.


Is it right for a church to be wealthy? Jesus preached that the faithful should give up their wealth and worldly possessions and spend a humble existence in servitude of God. A church must have a certain amount of wealth in order to continue operating, serving its parishioners, and delivering the word to non-believers. However, churches of all denominations certainly amass wealth for its own sake. The canonical example of this is the Roman Catholic Church, whose ostentatious wealth I find shameful in the light of Jesus's teachings.

What does Christianity say about the wealth of a church? Its priests? Does wealth acquired in the name of the service of God have the same stigma as wealth acquired for ordinary reasons? Why or why not?

(Disclaimer: I am not a Christian, merely a curious agnostic.)

I'm unaware of Jesus preaching anywhere "that the faithful should give up their wealth and worldly possessions and spend a humble existence in servitude of God."  In Luke chapter 18 we have the account of one person who Jesus said should divest himself of his worldly possessions and distribute his wealth to the poor if he would be perfect, but this is nowhere mentioned as a general commandment.

The theme that does come up again and again, both in Jesus's preaching and in the various apostolic letters later on, is to keep your priorities straight.  Wealth becomes sinful if you let the pursuit of wealth become more important to you than the pursuit of righteousness.  This is why we are told that the love of money, not the money itself, is the root of all evil.

On the other hand, having resources available gives you the power to do good with them.  Witness the impact that the Salvation Army and Catholic Charities have on disadvantaged communities, or the way the Mormons tend to always show up promptly at the scene of any major disaster with large amounts of supplies and volunteers to contribute to relief efforts.  These are people living their religion, actively giving of themselves to help those in need, as Jesus and his apostles did.

If you're looking to grade religions on Christian living, a better question than "how much money does church X have?" is "what do they do with their resources?"