For Eastern Orthodox churches, what are the main references concerning Biblical Interpretation methodology? The Catholic Church has several encyclicals giving guidelines for Biblical Interpretation, such as Divino Afflante Spiritu or Providentissimus Deus.  Are there any Eastern Orthodox equivalents to these encyclicals? I imagine they use the writings of the Church Fathers such as Augustine's De doctrina christiana, but I was wondering if there is any later reference work that they use to define their interpretation methodology. (Any other references concerning Eastern Orthodox Biblical interpretation methodology would be appreciated, including Slavonic / Russian or Greek works).

Being Orthodox Christian myself, I haven't heard of any authoritative book mainly because the Church structure is not like in the west with a single Papal authority. We, as you probably know, with our different jurisdictions and patriarchies are self governing but are in communion with one another through love and common Creed. However we do have an overall methodology and it's is the same through out. Scriptural interpretation is derived from the lives, experiences and writings of the saints.

Some of the great sources of biblical interpretations come from Saints not recognized by the Catholic West. A good example would be of St. Gregory Palamas who probably is one of the more important theologians of the Orthodox East. His works outline, in great detail, the mindset of the Orthodox Church in terms of sin and salvation, and the fall of man. A good book I found title "Passions and Virtues" by Anestis Keselopoulus brings many of the Saint's works together to form a Orthodox mindset. It's with this mindset we begin to interpret the holy scriptures.

Of course works by many other Church fathers like St.Chysostom, St.Basil the Great, St. Gregory of Nyssia, St. John Climascus, and St. Anthony the Great, are greatly used as well. Among theologians of today look at the writings of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. There is also the Didache.

All the best and I hope this helps.


Who are David and Sibyls in the first stanza of Dies Iræ? The first stanza of the medieval Latin hymn Dies Iræ is as follows:

Dies iræ, dies illa
Solvet sæclum in favilla,
Teste David cum Sibylla.

While the beginning is clearly taken from the prophet Zephaniah:

Dies iræ dies illa, dies tribulationis et angustiæ, dies calamitatis et miseriæ, dies tenebrarum et caliginis, dies nebulæ et turbinis (Zef 1:15)

I am wondering to whom the names the last line refer and what specific testimonies are ment.
For David the Old Testament king of Israel comes to mind – but is there any specific testimony concerned with the day of wrath?
For Sibylla, I do not even find her name in the bible. Wikipedia refers to some ancient greek oracles; but why should they be named in a christian hymn.
Is there a definitive interpretation? Who are these two and can their specific testimonies identified?

Dies Irae is a Latin hymn or sequence prescribed for the Roman Catholic Requiem Mass (Mass for the Dead or Funeral Mass) as well as on the Feast of All Souls (November 2) until the liturgical reforms which followed the Second Vatican Council. It could be noted that there are more translations in English than in any other modern language of this hymn. By 1913, the English renderings numbered 234, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on the subject.
Fish Eaters has this to say about King David and the Sibyls:

These women are often depicted in medieval dramas, Jesse Trees and Nativity scenes. One hears of the Sibyls in Catholic chant and hymns, too: on Christmas Eve, after Matins and before Mass, The Song of the Sibyl was sung all over Europe until the Council of Trent (now this custom, restored in some places in the 17th c., remains mostly in Spain). They are most famously mentioned in the "Dies Irae," sung at Masses for the dead. Its opening lines:

Dies irae, dies illa,

solvet saeculum in favilla,

teste David cum Sibylla.

That day of wrath,

that dreadful day,
shall heaven and earth in ashes lay,

as David and the Sybil say.

Who were these women whom Christians group with King David and the great Old Covenant Prophets?

Who Was the Corroborating Sibyl in Dies Irae?

We are startled to have the Sibyl brought in as a supporting witness: Teste David cum Sibylla. The Sibyl is a virginal prophetess, who is the medium and mouthpiece of the religious or inspired traditions of paganism. The Erythrean Sibyl and the Samian Sibyl are credited with prophecies concerning the Last Judgment and the end of the world. The reference to the pagan prophetess is likely prompted by the practice of Christian art, which since the thirteenth century has placed the Sibyls at the side of, or rather opposite to, the prophets. We know today that the twelve books of Sibylline prophecy that have come down to us are not genuine, but among Christians of earlier centuries there was a widespread belief in their authenticity. St. Jerome has a passage that implies some credence on his part. Lactantius even quotes the pronouncements of the Sibyls as divinely inspired. The great St. Thomas declares: "Etiam Sibyllae multa vera praedixerunt de Christo" (Summa, II-II, Q. clxxii, art. 6). St. Augustine quotes a Sibylline utterance on the destruction of the world, but he seems to have his tongue in his cheek and says that the Sibylline prophecies in general can be looked upon as the inventions of certain Christians: "Istae prophetiae possunt putari a christianis esse confictae" (De Civ. Dei, lib. XVIII, cap. 47). Perhaps Thomas of Celano believed that certain individuals outside of the Chosen People received revelations concerning certain mysteries, and gave the Sibyl a distinction she did not deserve by adducing her as a witness. - Dies Irae, Masterpiece of Latin Poetry by Msgr. Paul E. Campbell, M.A., Litt.D., Ed.D.

As a side note, Michelangelo painted five Sibyls on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.
Let us remember that King David had incurred the wrath of God as expressed through the prophet Nathan (I Samuel 11-12).

Worst of all, David had one of his own soldiers killed so he could take his wife for himself, which incurred the wrath of God as expressed through the prophet Nathan (I Samuel 11-12). Yet David repented and sought forgiveness (Psalm 51 is associated with this incident), which God freely granted while not exempting him from the consequences of this flagrant infraction of his law. - A flawed king: David


Was Jesus omniscient regarding earthly matters? There are several questions regarding the omniscience of Jesus, but they mostly concern the Final Judgement, etc., not earthly concerns or human knowledge.

This question boils down basically to two ideas (please indicate if they are separate enough to warrant a split in two different questions)

Was Jesus omniscient regarding whatever happened in the mortal world?
The story of Lazarus could indicate against it, as Jesus needed being told that Lazarus is dying, instead of saying "I feel Lazarus is dying / just died, let's pay him a visit", unless it was deliberate to make a miracle possible.
Was Jesus knowing everything what humans are capable of knowing? Did Jesus possess something like the entirety of human knowledge? Of course, He did ask questions from time to time, but they could have been rhetorical questions so that the answer could be used to illustrate something.

Please, refrain from answering with personal opinions or own logical deductions. I know this applies to all questions on this site, but I feel this question might especially invite such answers. I'm interested in seeing an overview of major Christian beliefs on the subject, assuming there are no more than a few.

Short answer(s):

  Was Jesus omniscient regarding earthly matters?

No. At least not at all times. (eg. In Luke 2:52 Jesus is said to grow/increase/advance in wisdom depending on translation - these all imply either a lack of omniscience, or at the very least an unexercised omniscience)

  Is there a notable doctrine of major denominations about this?

Yes, the doctrines of the hypostatic union of Christ's natures and Kenotic Theology are at play regarding this issue.

In more depth:

The doctrinal divisions on this doctrine revolve around to what degree a denomination or tradition accepts or rejects Kenotic theology. Most major denominations and Traditions are Chalcedonian in outlook and hold to a hypostatic union of Christ: the two natures of Christ - Divine and human - are essentially indivisible. Commonly, they regard the concept of Christ actually emptying himself of divine attributes as heretical despite the wording of Philippians 2:6-7 -

  6 Christ was truly God.
  But he did not try to remain
      equal with God.
  7 Instead he gave up everything*
      and became a slave,
  when he became
      like one of us. - CEV (emphasis added)

For those major denominations and Traditions, the only sense that Christ Jesus on earth would not be actually omniscient, is through his voluntary choice to live according to his human nature and not exercise his divine nature in regard to the acquisition of knowledge, but if he so chose, he could access his omniscience and attain knowledge supernaturally at any time.  Clearly there is testimony in the gospels that portray Jesus' (seeming) ignorance of some matters (cf. Luke 2:52, Luke 8:44-48, Matthew 24:36), while in other places he appears to access knowledge supernaturally (cf. John 1:47-51, John 11:11-15 - this last one actually contradicts your supposed indication in point 1.). The first is declared to be consistent with Christ living in general according to his human nature in order that:

  Jesus understands every weakness of ours, because he was tempted in every way that we are. But he did not sin! - Hebrews 4:15 CEV

The second is taken as prima facie evidence that the doctrine of hypostatic union is orthodox and Christ always retained access to his divine attributes - accessible when necessary.

These are not the only views on the matter - the Oriental Orthodox Churches do not adhere to the Chalcedonian creed, and their Monophysite Christology may make it very difficult to provide an answer to your question (not being expert in this doctrine, I do not undertake to speculate on what a response according to it may be).

The perhaps significant divergence is with regard to those who unashamedly hold to a version of Kenotic Theology - that there was a real 'emptying' of the divine attributes of the Son at the incarnation.  Holders of this view tend to regard the moment at Jesus baptism when the Holy Spirit is recorded as descending on him as being especially significant in explaining how Jesus could have emptied himself of his omniscience and yet access knowledge by supernatural means - it was by the power of the Holy Spirit, not by his own 'emptied' divine nature. They may also quote Hebrews 2:9 in support of this view -

  What we do see is Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels. Because of God’s wonderful kindness, Jesus died for everyone. And now that Jesus has suffered and died, he is crowned with glory and honor! - CEV (emphasis added)

In general many if not most Pentecostal and Charismatic denominations have some form of Kenotic theory at the back of their Pneumatology in particular, even if they do not explicitly express their Christological doctrines in a Kenotic manner.

*The verb in the phrase 'he gave up everything' is:

  κενόω (kenoō)

  Strong: G2758

  GK: G3033

  to empty, evacuate; ἑαυτόν, to divest one’s self of one’s prerogatives, abase one’s self, Phil. 2:7; to deprive a thing of its proper functions, Rom. 4:14; 1 Cor. 1:17; to show to be without foundation, falsify, 1 Cor. 9:15; 2 Cor. 9:3 (from Mounce Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, cf. http://studybible.info/strongs/G2758)

From which comes Kenosis (noun form) or Kenotic (adjectival form).


Why was the devil given power over death? From Hebrews 2:14-15,

  Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their
  humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who
  holds the power of death - that is, the devil - and free those who all
  their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.

I'm sure I've seen this mentioned elsewhere in scripture as well, but what I don't recall is why. Is it ever stated why Satan was given power or control over the death of humans?

Goodness exists.
Evil is not an object, it exists only as the negation of Good. Evil cannot create, it is a name for destruction. For instance, punching a stranger is bad because it would negate his happiness and his comfort (somewhat!)...but neither the fist, the motion, nor his face exist as evil objects. (Augustus felt this way- and the very great Mr CS Lewis agreed).
The sum of all goodness is in God.
Lucifer rebelled against God, so rebelled against goodness, so rebelled against creation. His is none-creation. His, therefore, is death. All who follow Satan follow true death because they have removed themselves from 'being'. All who follow God die to be raised in a perfected creation of goodness.


Abortion and Biblical End Times Prophecy Is there anything in scripture (or even private revelation to the saints) which says that near the end of the world, the world as a whole will come to accept abortion as morally acceptable?

Nothing specific to abortion, although I wouldn't expect there to be. 2 Timothy 3:1-7 gives us:

   1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

Which generally points to people being disobedient, which is probably the closest you'll find. The problem, though, is that people have always been disobedient and rebellious. Before deciding the above fits "today", first try to find a point in history where it wouldn't fit. And indeed, much of this comes down to simply different ethics (meaning: bemoaning people who don't abide the church's edicts) . Moving away from abortion (too divisive to have a constructive discussion), while "modern" values may sometimes seem at odds with Christianity, I for one thinks today's society is heading in a positive direction, not a negative one, with a lot of emphasis on equality and the value of all humans, even (tongue in cheek) those that don't profess and follow Christian beliefs. And even those that do.

Likewise, looking at Luke 21 10-11, 25-26 - we have always been at the mercy of nature. The difference now is that we have much better reporting, measurement and awareness (including awareness of our own harm on the world).

On a more personal note, I don't think obsessing about end of the world prophecy is healthy in a culture. I'd much rather we all got on with living our lives in accordance with our values, and to the greater communal (local and international) good.

So: no, and no.


Where did Baptists get their name and what do they believe? Where and when did the Baptists get their name and what do they believe that sets them apart from the rest of Protestant denominations?

I realize there are different divisions among Baptists as well, so let's keep this limited to the issues that were relevant when the term Baptist first became used and that generally cover most Baptist denominations today but still specific enough to uniquely identify what makes Baptists different from the members of other denominations Protestant denominations.

The key difference is that in most other denominations (Anglicanism, Methodism, the United Reformed Church, etc) infant baptism is practised. Baptists believe that baptism is a public profession of personal faith - in other words, a public display of a decision someone has made themselves - and the notion of infant baptism is at odds with this.

Most new churches (emergent, or whichever word you prefer - churches that were established in the last few decades) profess to be non-denominational but tend to accord with Baptist theology, at least in the respect of baptism.


Do married couples need to live sexually? What is the Catholic interpretation of a married couple's need to be living sexually if they don't feel the need for it?
Let's say both of them don't feel the need to live romantically. They got to the point they are ok to live together like brother and sister. They love each other and they don't need sex. It's not an act of sacrifice or any kind of mortification, basically, they lost a desire to have sex and both are ok with it. They are both still fruitful though.

Are they still required to perform sex within marriage so they can keep procreating or this is accepted as ok by the Church's teaching?

The cessation of sexual acts between a married couple by common consent is seen as valid by the Church, particularly as they age. Also, the ancient interpretation (demonstrated by the Canons of the Councils of Carthage) is that upon raising a man to the diaconate (and, of old, presbyterate and episcopate) they must maintain perfect continence, that is, must cease sexual activity with their wives, if they have any.
That being said, the Catechism teaches:

The openness to fertility
1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."Gaudium et Spes 48 #1; 50
Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: "It is not good that man should be alone," and "from the beginning (he) made them male and female"; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: "Be fruitful and multiply." Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.GS 50 #1; cf. Gen 2:18; Mt 19:4; Gen 1:28
1653 The fruitfulness of conjugal love extends to the fruits of the moral, spiritual, and supernatural life that parents hand on to their children by education. Parents are the principal and first educators of their children.Cf. Gravissimum Educationis 3 In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life.Cf. Familiaris Consortio 28
1654 Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.
1664 Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage. Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its "supreme gift," the child (GS 50 # 1).

In other words, though a couple need not have sexual relations constantly through their lives, they must make an honest effort, particularly in the beginning of their conjugal life, to open themselves to fertility and receive any children which the Creator has prepared for them. A Catholic who marries with no intention of ever having children does not marry validly, but once children have come or old age or the Diaconate have rendered unlikely or impossible their arrival, a couple may agree to end sexual relations without prejudice to their matrimony, provided they keep "radiat[ing] a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice."


What is the biblical basis to say that prophetic words spoken today are equivalent in authority to scripture? Continuationists, in general believe that all the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still active and available today, including prophecy.

So far as I am aware, prophecy in this context refers to (or in theory includes) foretelling of events, or descriptions of the current state of things independent of any prior knowledge of the one speaking the word (for example the details of someone else's life and some word in relation to that).

More importantly, so far as I am aware, they believe in prophecy, in terms of special revelation received to an individual directly from God (the Holy Spirit), either as a word for another individual, or a prophecy over a nation etc.

My question is, given the assumption of special, direct revelation from God pertaining to modern prophecy (assuming that this is biblical), what is the biblical basis to claim that (at least some of) these prophecies are equivalent in their authority to scripture? I.e are they to be taken as inspired, inerrant, infallible (in-so-far as scripture is also)?

I can't speak for all non-cessationists but the LDS (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) believe:

  in both ancient and modern prophecy (source)

Revelation or prophecy from a prophet, inspired men called to speak for the Lord, is equivalent in authority as the scriptures.

Doctrine and Covenants 1:38

  What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

Doctrine and Covenants 21:4-5

  Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;
  For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

See also

Doc&Cov 1:14-16
Prophets
Amos 3:7


What does the Bible say about body art/tattos? I'm not Christian myself but I have many Christian friends who have tattoos/body art. Is this something that is forbidden in Christianity?

The Bible mentions tattoos just once, at Leviticus 19:28, which says: “You must not put tattoo marking upon yourselves.”  This prohibition was for the nation of Israel and should not be taken to apply to the New Covenant relationship that GOD has established with Christians.
  I am not aware of any major Christian denominations that directly address tattoos nor do they prohibit them.  There are some smaller groups, however, that prohibit tattoos.
  The simple answer is that nothing in the New Covenant prohibits Christians from getting tattoos.


What would inerrancy imply for Mormons? Amongst many evangelicals, there is at least a question around inerrancy, such as is expressed by some in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

The issues regarding Joseph Smith's translation of the Golden Plates would offer an interesting test case, in that while the original manuscript (aka the plates themselves) are no longer available, Smith's first translated notes are.  That said, there are known revisions and edits to the current text.

Does there exist within the LDS spectrum groups that hold to the inerrancy of Smith's original manuscripts? And, if so, are there any significant doctrinal issues that such groups would hold as a result?

As Daniel pointed out in a comment, the Book of Mormon speaks to this question on the first page:

  And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

This is important to note, as people do make mistakes, and have made some significant ones with the Book of Mormon.  For example, in the original printing, the word "robber" was misprinted as "nobler" as well as a handful of other typographical errors, most likely due to Oliver Cowdery's handwriting being difficult for the typesetter to read.  (See "Understanding Textual Changes in the Book of Mormon" for an in-depth look at the subject.)

There also exists in the text itself a rather amusing error:

Alma 24: 19:

  ... and thus we see that they buried their weapons of peace, or they buried the weapons of war, for peace.

The work of writing on metal plates would not easily lend itself to erasing errors; you can just imagine Mormon cringing here as he realizes what he just wrote, and then hastily adding a bit of corrective text!

As for significant doctrinal issues, not really.  The Golden Plates may not be easily accessible today, but the original English manuscript is, and it's considered doctrinally authoritative, if not necessarily textually authoritative, given that the English language was not yet standardized at the time it was written, and it was transcribed with less concern for grammar than one might hope for today.  Because an original, authoritative manuscript exists to check against, the types of confusions and disagreements often seen in Biblical scholarship regarding the authenticity of various passages simply doesn't exist in Book of Mormon scholarship.


God's foreknowledge according to the Calvinist? I read from this link-1

  Romans 8:29 means that God “fore-loved” certain people, and
  predestinated them

And from this link-2

  1 Peter 1:20 says Christ was "foreknown before the foundation of the
  world." Surely this means more than that God the Father looked into
  the future to behold Christ! It means He had an eternal, loving
  relationship with Him.

  The same is true of the elect, whom we are told God "foreknew" (Romans
  8:29). That means He knew them--he loved them--before the foundation
  of the world.

If it's Jesus - then it's easier for me to understand that "God fore-loved Jesus" as Jesus himself is eternal.

But from the second paragraph of link-2, that leads me to question :
Do the Calvinist believe a pre-existent person (with his/her own life before the creation) whom God love (other than Jesus) before the creation ?

I got the answer from GotQuestion site :

  Question: "What does the Bible say about the pre-existence of souls?"

  Answer: The Bible says nothing about the pre-existence of souls
  because this is a man-made idea with no basis in truth.

So the question :
(1a) Please explain to me of this sentence "Before the creation, God had an eternal, loving relationship with some non-existence people/soul"
(1b) In what verse which tell God-made idea that He foreknown = He foreloved ? that He foreknown = "Before the creation, God had an eternal, loving relationship with some non-existence soul"  ?

Next,
To me the explanation from those links doesn't match with the potter in Romans 9. God tell that the potter use from the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into, NOT from a lump of clay he love which causing him to make it as a jar for decoration and from a lump of clay he hated which causing him to make a jar to throw to garbage. The potter decide to make an object which he is going to love (for decoration) and an object which he is going to hate (throw to garbage).

(2) So how is the explanation from the Calvinist about this ?

From link-2,

  The “foreknowledge” view sees all of history as some great movie that
  God watched but did not create. He is therefore not sovereign.

(3) How God is sovereign if He Himself can't help but love some non-existence (lump) and He can't help but hate some non-existence (lump)? Compare with the potter, the potter is sovereign as he decide to make  an object for his decoration and an object for him to throw to garbage from nothing (lump). There is no cause on the potter's "election" of the lump of clay.

As a former Calvinist, I hope I can help provide more light than confusion. To caveats: (1) at the outset you should know that there is diversity even within 'Calvinism' so several answers are possible on each point, and (2) I'm not entirely certain I understand you questions but I will do my best to help on each of the four points you note.

1. In brief, a Calvinist believes neither of these statements.

1.A. GotQuestions is correct when they say Christians cannot infer from the bible that there is such thing as a pre-existence of souls. Because of this, Calvinists do not believe that God had a loving relationship with pre-existent souls. Verses that GotQuestions cites bear this out (e.g. Zech. 12:1) and this is the standard Calvinist position.

1.B.I. Of course 1.A. depends logically on 1.B. in assuming that to 'fore-know' means to 'fore-love'. The reference offered by Ligonier ministries shows that the concept of 'knowing' throughout the bible is often (but not always) a relational term. This is true. However, this does not rule out cognitive knowing as one potential meaning of 'knowing'. E.G. in one sense I cognitively know information about you from your question, the sources you cite, and use of language. In an another sense, in as much as you are a real person who wrote this question, I know you relation-ally - but only insofar as I cognitive-ly understand your question. Because of this, Calvinists do not have to say, and to my knowledge most do not say, that God had a loving-relationship with pre-existent souls. Because, per 1.A. they do not believe in pre-existent souls and per 1.B. knowledge of persons and their future within your mind (i.e. cognitively previous to their existence/creation) fulfills the basic meaning of foreknowing.

1.B.II. I hypothesize that when Ligonier Ministries tries to say that God 'fore-loved' they don't intend that connotation to be used in reference to predestination but in contrast to the Arminian view which bases God's cognitive "knowledge" on the choices of individuals. Therefore, they want to avoid a type of foreknowledge that is cognitive and potentially based on the choices of free human persons, and they opt to argue that knowledge is relational not cognitive. (On their part this is a false dichotomy but that is another issue entirely)

Conclusion of 1. You may be correct in pointing out a contradiction between what Calvinists believe and what they logically should believe, but they do not believe either of these things. Alternatively, you could be using Calvinist definitions of words like 'fore-knowledge' in an overly mathematical way which is confusing you (1=A, A=/=B, a=B, therefore A=B AND a=/=B). Calvinists do not believe in a pre-existent soul nor in a pre-creation relationship of God to the 'elect'. Except in the case of Jesus. Jesus is both pre-existent and eternally loved by the Father through the Spirit. The corporate Arminian explanation from this point disagrees with Calvinists by saying God has eternally elected only Jesus and through his actual fore-loved-ness he elects others.

2. I don't think you understand what Ligonier Ministries is trying to say in their post.

2.1. (1) The pot analogy is an analogy is an analogy designed to say one thing not a description of reality that should be pressed beyond its original purpose. (2) In the Calvinist view, it is a reference to God's free determination of certain groups and/or persons (i.e. Israel in Rom. 11) to be saved from their sins or punished for their sins. This strong use of the word fore-knowledge (+determination/predestination) is what Calvinists mean and in their post, Ligonier Ministries says this is the correct view as opposed to the weaker view of fore-knowledge held by some Arminians in which God simply fore-knows (-determination) what will happen.

Conclusion of 2. Because Calvinists believe in a stronger, deterministic, type of fore-knowledge (i.e. writing, directing, visualizing, and then watching a movie) which also means predestination, they believe Arminians view of simple-foreknowledge (i.e. just watching a movie someone else wrote) is incorrect because is DOES NOT leave God as Sovereign. You seem to be quoting what Calvinists DO NOT believe, but this seems to be more the fault of the writer who puts this where a conclusion usually is. In reality Arminians do not necessarily believe this, rather that God writes, directs, visualizes, watches and himself acts/participates in a story where he has created real actors besides himself.

3. Per discussion under question 2.1. you are correct in believing this is NOT consistent with the sovereignty view of Calvinists. They believe God isn't forced to love pre-existent souls, and they believe, like the potter, he is free to make people things for good or bad purposes. However, some moderate Calvinists will allow along with Arminians that God can sovereign-ly choose to create a world where he includes the free choice of creatures (at minimum Adam and Eve had free will) in his designation.

Sources: IVP's Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views would give you far more context about the overall perspectives possible, but I hope this has been helpful.

Conclusion: At the back of this is the deterministic view of Calvinism where God exists beyond time, and actually created time itself. At the end of the day, your question revolves around the paradox of a a-temporal God relating to temporal (time-bound) creatures. I'd consider exploring William Lane Craig's Time and Eternity for a better answer on this count, although it is a very dense debate in the philosophy of religion.


Determining literary types in the Bible Much of the Bible is historical narrative. Other parts, such as many of Psalms, are poems - rife with figurative phrases (often surrounding a specific event or need or desire). Other parts are instructive (eg most of Paul's writings). Lastly there are prophetic segments - figurative language interwoven with historical narrative and directly-instructive passages.

How is the reader to determine which parts are figurative, which are historical fact, etc?

It can be very difficult, in general. An example is the book of Jonah. Taken literally, he spends three days and nights inside the belly of a fish or whale. Other readers believe that the book is not meant to be read historically, but is a kind of fable that carries a moral lesson. How are we to determine which is the case?

Read the book and find out what it says about itself.
Compare it to other writings, prophetic or historical or literary.
See how it is used elsewhere in the Bible (such as Luke 11:29-32).
Examine the language and history - When did Jonah live (2 Kings 14:25)? Did he write the book, or is it only attributed to him? Is the language characteristic of that era? Is Nineveh as large as Jonah says? Did Assyrian kings behave in the way suggested? Can a person live inside a whale?
Find out what experts have written about the book. Consider their evidence and arguments.
Think about: What would the implications be if this were historical? What if it were not historical? Either way, how does that fit with any other aspect of my faith?

Additionally, while some passages are clear, there are many that have multiple meanings. I decided to find an example by opening my nearest Bible (NJB) at random. It came open at the first page of Hosea, where we read (1:2)

  Yahweh said to Hosea, "Go, marry a whore, and get children with a whore; for the country itself has become nothing but a whore by abandoning Yahweh."

The family life of Hosea (literal, historical) has an additional layer of meaning (allegorical, figurative) explained in the text: it mirrors the relationship between God and his faithless people. Equally, Hosea was speaking to Israel at a particular time, but his theme is applicable to us in general, as individuals and as a church. This more general interpretation may also be justified in terms of the Bible text as a whole: Jesus quotes Hosea 6:6 in Matthew 9:13 and 12:7, clearly validating the wider application of that passage.

This kind of thing is very common; it does not necessarily make sense to make a clean demarcation between "historical" and "figurative" passages, when there are so many instances of the Bible saying "X happened, and this is what X means". The circumstances of the Fall, the Exodus, the Exile, etc., are continually being referred to in newer writings, and used to draw moral or theological lessons.

The really difficult part comes with passages like Joshua 10:12-15. This is the part where "the sun stood still in the middle of the sky and delayed its setting for almost a whole day" (10:13). The literal meaning is, of course, that the sun did just that (and the moon too). It is presented in the text as genuinely happening, as a historical event. We can draw wider lessons, like - the sun is subject to God, God protects his people, and so on. It's not hard to believe that this passage is figuratively true in that regard, but many people have difficulty believing in its literal truth. So this question goes right to the heart of how one reads the Bible, and whether it is possible to believe in the wider message without believing in its historical grounding. In short, the determining of literary types implies also being able to settle many other controversies of Biblical interpretation.


How can common believers in the Eastern Orthodox Church be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous? There have been some councils, the decisions of which were later reversed by some latter councils. Thus, if your position on a particular matter that was being considered at those councils was too strong, you could easily be excommunicated from the Church as a heretic between those two councils, while you would be just fine after the second one, or the other way around.

Here is an example: the council of Hieria in 754 a.d. and the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 a.d., both of which appropriated their titles as Seventh Ecumenical Council. The first council forbade the use of icons, and the second one reversed that decree. I know that one could say here that the Synod of Hieria was not an Ecumenical Council (it was called and chaired by the imperial family and no patriarchs were present, plus, its status is implicit in the Second Council of Nicaea declaring itself to be the actual Seventh Ecumenical Council), however, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that at the time when it took place it was announced as an Ecumenical Council, which means that ordinary folks - at least during the time between those two councils - had to follow the decrees of the council of Hiernia, otherwise, they would definitely fall into the category of heretics according to the decree of that council.

So, the question is: How can common believers in the Eastern Orthodox Church be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous?

My simple answer: the Holy Spirit promised to guide the Church into all truth. The Orthodox believe that He has fulfilled His promise. Now for my lengthier response:

There is somewhat of an implied dichotomy in Western thought that must be called out right off the bat: the distinction between Scripture and Tradition. In Eastern thought, there is no distinction, as the Church and its apostolic tradition existed before the New Testament was written. Scripture is part of tradition, indeed it plays the preeminent role in Tradition. Tradition is not opposed to Scripture nor does it contradict it any point, rather it explains Scripture. But I do not have time to address this fully, nor is it exactly the question at hand. Suffice it to say that in Eastern thought (and increasingly also in modern scholastic Western thought), sola scriptura is a myth—a logical fallacy. Everyone appeals to tradition when interpreting scripture - we just don't agree on which tradition, and many deny that they have any such tradition (and this ignorance is even more dangerous). Hence the 23,000+ denominations in Western Christianity.

In John 16:12-13, Jesus said, "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth." It should be noted that in both instances, the word "you" is plural. This promise was not made to individuals, but to the disciples, they that would become the Church and form the apostolic tradition that was to be guarded and passed on (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6). Keep in mind that many churches were planted before the New Testament was written.

When early heresies threatened to corrupt the gospel, early Christians turned to the apostolic tradition to defend the faith (such as when Christians appealed to apostolic succession to refute the Gnostics' claim that Jesus had secret teachings and that there were alternate gospels. Note that no official canon of scripture was adopted until the 16th century in the West, and no official canon has ever been declared in the East). When heresies threatened to divide the unity of the entire church, the church came together with bishops (episkopoi) representing the Church in various geographic regions, including both East and West for the first seven "ecumenical" (church-wide) councils.

When considering this question which was directed to the East, a broader one comes to mind: how can anyone in Christianity-whether Eastern or Western-be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous? For instance, the Church preserved certain texts which were eventually accepted as the canon which we today call the bible, and they chose to repudiate other texts. Even still, not everyone was unanimous on the 66 books included in the modern Protestant bible (cf. antilegomena), not to mention the deuterocanonical books found in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox bibles. The reality is that everything we have in the Christian faith, including our bible, comes from tradition. Studying history helps make sense of it (I highly recommend Jaroslav's five-volume set on The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, and his concise book Vindication of Tradition. Pelikan is a renowned ecclesiastical historian).

The East has critically evaluated the Church's many theologians, such as the Cappadocian fathers repudiating how Origen and Irenaeus integrated Platonic and Neo-Platonic thought into their theology. Also note that with the exception of Martin Luther and some recent scholars, most Western Christians have never considered how Aristotelian thought and scholasticism has impacted Protestant theology. Western Christianity's ignorance of history prior to the 16th century has lead them to unquestionably adopt many heretical and worldly philosophical viewpoints, and this can be seen clearly in the rampant division and individualistic soteriology that has marked Western Christianity.

A close examination of history shows a remarkable unity in the history of the Church for over 1000 years before the bishop of Rome excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople in 1054. Prior to that event the Church had always decided issues via ecumenical councils, but the bishop of Rome wished to have sole authority over the entire Church, which was an innovation and was not the apostolic tradition (contrary to Roman Catholic teaching that Peter was the head over all the apostles-we can see already in the New Testament that Paul corrected Peter and that James appears to preside in some way as a leader over the Jerusalem council in Acts 15). Suffice it to say that while there are anomalous events such as the council of Hiera, history shows that these decisions were local and thus not widely accepted and passed on in the Church. Despite many challenges to the faith and Church unity, She maintained remarkable unity throughout history, especially in the East.

In summary, the East trusts that the Holy Spirit has continued to guide the Church into all truth. Eastern theologians are generally very knowledgeable about Church history and they "give their ancestors a vote" when interpreting scripture. Most Protestants do also, they simply aren't honest about it in most cases and don't look much further in the past than the 16th century for theological guidance, except to occasionally use the content of early conciliar creeds.

I do not have time to write a history lesson about the many interconnected issues that are requisite knowledge for a more in depth discussion of the trustworthiness and value of tradition, I have merely hinted at some of the notable data. I hope that I have given a basic response and good resource recommendations to learn more. I hope that this response has not come off as demeaning. I frequently hear Western Christians critiquing Eastern Christians for being uncritical towards Christian history, when the exact opposite is generally the case.


Would Jewish religious leaders have travelled by horse or camel i.e. Saul? Questions have been raised as to how Saul travelled to Damascus. Would he or any of the Jewish religious authorities have travelled by beasts, especially by camels?

This is actually an interesting topic because there is much debate about it!

Tradition has held that Saul/Paul rode a horse to Damascus, but when you read the verses that deal with this, a horse is not mentioned. So there seems to be a hint in tradition that he rode a horse but scripture does not back it up. So here it depends on how much you rely on tradition and the origins of this specific one.

Similarly, our nativity scenes (tradition) depict the wise men as riding camels. They were foreigners, not Jews, but this knowledge mixed with a knowledge of the middle east as being inhabited by horses and camels suggests they could have ridden either. It was also common to ride donkeys or asses (see John chapter 12, and this post).


What is meant by "the first will be the last and the last will be the first"? What is meant by "the first will be the last and the last will be the first"?

In Matthew 19:30 it tells us about the rich young man who asked Jesus on what good things he must do to receive eternal life.  Later Peter said, (19:27) "we have left everything and follow you. What will we have?. Jesus said to them " you can be sure that when the son of man sits on his glorious throne in the new age, then you 12 followers of mine also sit on thrones, to rule the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or mother or fathers or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times more and will be given eternal life. But many who now are first will be the last, and many who now are last will be the first."

Is there any connection between Matthew 20:16 about the workers in the vineyard and in Mark 9:35?

If you look at the context in the parable, in Matthew 20, I believe you will see that Jesus is addressing the issue of spiritual pride.  Those who worked all day thought that they deserved more pay, even though they had agreed to their wages before their work began.  They were comparing themselves to those who came last and were paid what they themselves had agreed to work all day for.
Jesus had the latecomers in the parable being paid first to set up the tension of the situation and evoke feelings about what seemed unfair to the listeners.  It seemed unfair on two counts, that those who worked all day had to wait until last for their wages, and that they didn't receive more than those who only worked after being hired "at the eleventh hour."
The all-day workers prided themselves on their long hours, but forgot their agreement with the boss.  They grumbled.  Their hearts weren't to serve the boss well to please him, but only for what they could get out of it.
The latecomers were grateful for the job and the pay to which they had agreed.  They probably felt a bit sheepish receiving their wages under the scrutiny of the onlooking all-day workers.  They may have felt unworthy to be counted among them, but gladly received their wages from the boss with hearts full of thanks.  They didn't expect anything more than what they had agreed to.
In heaven, there will be people who recognized God's grace in Jesus Christ at an early age and received eternal life.  They will have walked with Him for a lifetime.  There will also be those who only recognize His grace for salvation at the end of their lives.  They, too will enter heaven, but with less works with which to glorify Christ.  His grace to them is no less.  They came last, but are "first" in the sense that all who receive His grace are first.  They don't demand anything, yet He freely bestows eternal life and blessing.
Those who think they deserve salvation should be wary.  If they are working for reward, they may receive it in this life, but the life hereafter will hold nothing for them, because they have rejected what was offered--the free gift of salvation.  They come to the front of the line, expecting a grand entrance, but Jesus says, "Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" (Matthew 7:23)
Now that someone has edited the question, to include Matthew 9:35, I include the fuller quote here (verses 31-37):

for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he is killed, after three days he will rise.” But they did not understand the saying, and were afraid to ask him.
Who Is the Greatest?
And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?” But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.”

From this broader, Biblical context of Jesus' words and teaching, it does seem that He is indeed addressing spiritual pride and pride in general.


Why was Jesus amazed by the Syrophoenician women's faith? “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”
  Mark 7:27-29 NIV

Verse 27:

Did Jesus question the women about her daughter's provisions?

Verse 28:

Jesus was amazed by how she had replied to His question. I just don't understand this part.

Verse 29:

God rewards the women because of her faith. I totally understand this part.

I would love to know what the two verses are about. Thanks

Jesus in His life of faith would have gone only to places that were His Father's will. Some schools of thought highlight that Jesus went to the borders of Tyre and Sidon specifically for the Syrophenician women since no other event of significance was recorded there.
Jesus would have been well acquainted with the burdens of the women before she even approached Him. He responded to her in a way that a Jewish person in His time would, but instead of discouragement or pride rising to the surface, the women's response was full of humility and faith. "God resisteth the proud and gives grace to the humble" (James 4:6). Her response was in sharp contrast to many of the responses He received from people of His own nation, many of whom that had rejected Him. Her response was very precious in His sight.
Ellen White in her Bible commentary on Jesus' life describes:

The woman urged her case with increased earnestness, bowing at Christ's feet, and crying, “Lord, help me.” Jesus, still apparently rejecting her entreaties, according to the unfeeling prejudice of the Jews, answered, “It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.” This was virtually asserting that it was not just to lavish the blessings brought to the favored people of God upon strangers and aliens from Israel. This answer would have utterly discouraged a less earnest seeker. But the woman saw that her opportunity had come. Beneath the apparent refusal of Jesus, she saw a compassion that He could not hide. “Truth, Lord,” she answered, “yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” While the children of the household eat at the father's table, even the dogs are not left unfed. They have a right to the crumbs that fall from the table abundantly supplied. So while there were many blessings given to Israel, was there not also a blessing for her? She was looked upon as a dog, and had she not then a dog's claim to a crumb from His bounty?
Jesus had just departed from His field of labor because the scribes and Pharisees were seeking to take His life. They murmured and complained. They manifested unbelief and bitterness, and refused the salvation so freely offered them. Here Christ meets one of an unfortunate and despised race, that has not been favored with the light of God's word; yet she yields at once to the divine influence of Christ, and has implicit faith in His ability to grant the favor she asks. She begs for the crumbs that fall from the Master's table. If she may have the privilege of a dog, she is willing to be regarded as a dog. She has no national or religious prejudice or pride to influence her course, and she immediately acknowledges Jesus as the Redeemer, and as being able to do all that she asks of Him.

The Desire of Ages, Pg 401
Jesus was the promised seed by whom "all nations was to be blessed." (Gen 22:18). In fact, many of Jesus' followers who expressed the greatest faith were non-Jews, such as the Centurion and the Samaritan woman. All of them received blessings and compassion from their Saviour.


Why were the apostles still going to the temple for prayer and rituals? In the book of Acts you read how the Apostles attend the temple, offer rituals, prayers etc.  So it is clear they are still obeying the Law.
How is it that they didn't understand modern day Christianity that the law was abolished and that sacrifices where of no use since Jesus cleared that for them?
Was this not discussed with them by Jesus during his earthly life?
Example:
Acts 21:23-26

23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow.
24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.
25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
26 The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

Acts 3:1

1 One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer—at three in the afternoon.

There are a few things to consider. First of all, the Jewish Ceremonial and Civil Laws have no bearing on US today. For example, i live in the U.S. and am a gentile christian.

Therefore the laws of Israel, and the regulations of Judaism have no bindings on me.

These people were still living in Israel, and were commanded by Jesus to follow the laws of the land

Matthew 22:20-21

  And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar's.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.”

This is specifically about Taxes, but the Epistles of the new testament expanded on this idea of obeying the law.

1 peter 2:13-14

  Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.

So, they would have been required to follow the Laws of their Jewish state.

Also, in the book of Acts we see the Peter, and also Paul would often go to the Synagogues to Preach, offering the Gospel to the Jews First, and then the Gentiles.

rom 1:16

  16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,[a] for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

In this Evangelistic context, it was important that Paul and his companions would not give the Jews any extra reason to stumble!

1 Corinthians 9:19-21

  19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law,[c] that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God,[d] but under law toward Christ[e]), that I might win those who are without law

Jesus had to send a special vision to Peter, showing him that no longer the gentiles and their foods were unclean in his sight.
Acts 10:11-16

  11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”
  14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”
  15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” 16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.

So the situation was a bit different for Jewish Christians, living in Israel,
Than it was for Gentile Christians, especially outside of the country of Israel.

In your question you say

  How is it that they didn't understand modern day Christianity that the law was abolished and that sacrifices where of no use since Jesus cleared that for them?

I think that saying the law was abolished is taking it to far.

Jesus himself said

  For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

--Addendum to address the comments.

I am in no way trying to promote legalism (attempting to obey the law to gain God'ds favor/Salvation).
I am just saying, that there is nothing wrong with following the law. It is Paul who told us in Romans 7:12

  12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

The unique message that the Apostles taught, was that the Law could in no way Save us. The Law only shows us our sins!
Romans 3:20

  20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

So, the Apostles were not in any way "against" the law. They just realized that Christ could save us, something the law never had the power to do.

Where Paul specifically got very upset, was when Jewish people tried to force obedience to the outward jewish traditions/laws onto believing Gentiles. Or when people tried to teach that following the law was required for salvation.


Were there any female priests in the temple? Were there any female priests in the temple in Jerusalem at any time?

The answer is a definite "no."

According to the Torah, only males descended from Aharon (i.e., בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן) were permitted to be priests (כֹּהֲנִים).

In Exo. 40:13-15, it is written,

  13 And you shall clothe Aharon with the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him, so that he may be a priest for Me. 14 And you shall bring his sons and clothe them with coats. 15 And you shall anoint them, just as you anointed their father, so that they may be a priest for Me, and their anointing shall certainly be for an everlasting priesthood in their generations.

  יג וְהִלְבַּשְׁתָּ֙ אֶֽת־אַהֲרֹ֔ן אֵ֖ת בִּגְדֵ֣י הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ וּמָשַׁחְתָּ֥ אֹתֹ֛ו וְקִדַּשְׁתָּ֥ אֹתֹ֖ו וְכִהֵ֥ן לִֽי׃
  יד וְאֶת־בָּנָ֖יו תַּקְרִ֑יב וְהִלְבַּשְׁתָּ֥ אֹתָ֖ם כֻּתֳּנֹֽת׃ טו וּמָשַׁחְתָּ֣ אֹתָ֗ם כַּאֲשֶׁ֤ר מָשַׁ֨חְתָּ֙ אֶת־אֲבִיהֶ֔ם וְכִהֲנ֖וּ לִ֑י וְ֠הָיְתָה לִהְיֹ֨ת לָהֶ֧ם מָשְׁחָתָ֛ם לִכְהֻנַּ֥ת עֹולָ֖ם לְדֹרֹתָֽם׃ WLC


The Interim Roman Missal of 1965? We all know that Pope Benedict XVI authorized the a more broad usage the Mass according to the usage of the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal in his Motu Proprio On the use of the Roman liturgy prior  to the reform of 1970 of July 7, 2007.

There is a little known fact that Pope Blessed Paul VI on March 7, 1965 authorized a new publication of the Roman Missal. Some call this the actual Missal of Vatican II. This particular edition in some ways allows for and makes several changes to previous editions of the Mass of Pope Pius V. In essence, this edition is the Trdentine Mass with several alterations as can be seen here.

A copy of this "Vatican II Missal" as approved for the use in the United States of America can be found here and here.

My question is simply: Are there any priests or religious communities that use this missal with the approval of Rome?

As we know, the Roman Missal of !965 introduced some changes to the way the Mass of Pope St. Pius V's Mass was celebrated.

Amongst the changes are:

  The possibility of concelebrating the Mass on days where it would deemed appropriate.
  The use of the maniple is optional.
  There was also some shortening of the prayers at the foot of the altar and the omission of the Last Gospel.
  Use of concelebration on certain occations.

This is the Mass that the monks of the Abbey of Fontgombault use since September 1989. I was a postulant in the abbey when the community received the permission through the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei at the Vatican. It could also be noted that Cardinal Ratzinger gave several talks on the liturgy in July 2001: Looking Again at the Question of the Liturgy with Cardinal Ratzinger: Proceedings of the July 2001 Fontgombault Liturgical Conference

The only clear source of Fontgombalt's usage of the Roman Missal of 1965 is in French:

  A la messe conventuelle, les bénédictins célèbrent selon l’Ordo missae de 1965. Les liturgistes eux-mêmes ont souvent oublié que le pape Paul VI publia un nouvel Ordo cette année-là (lequel Ordo fut très bien accueilli par Mgr Lefebvre).

  En effet : le vendredi 7 octobre 2011, près d’un millier de fidèles était réuni dans l’église abbatiale de Fontgombault pour la bénédiction du nouveau Père Abbé succédant au T.R.P. Dom Forgeot qui avait résilié sa charge après 34 années d’abbatiat. Mgr Maillard, Archevêque de Bourges, avait accepté de remettre la mitre et la crosse au T.R.P. Dom Plateau, le nouvel Abbé. A cette occasion, Mgr Maillard a concélébré avec cinq autres évêques ainsi que plusieurs pères abbés… selon la forme de la liturgie Romaine définie par l’Ordo de 1965.

  Mais surtout, l’Ordo de 1965 restaurait le rituel de la concélébration qui avait été abandonné au cours du Moyen-Âge. - L’Abbaye Notre-Dame de Fontgombault : un exemple à suivre pour la « réforme de la réforme »

In essence it states the Following:

  The Conventual High Mass is celebrated according to the Ordo of the Mass of 1965...

  On Friday, the 7th of October, 2011 in the company of about a thousand faithful were present in the abbatial church of Fomtgombault for the benediction of the new abbot Dom Jean Plateau, OSB. At this occasion Bishop Maillard concelebrated with five other bishops and several abbots .. according to Roman liturgy of the Ordo of the Mass of 1965.

  The Ordo of 1965 restored the rite of concelebration which had been abandoned sometime during the course of the Middle Ages.

Fontgombault's daughter houses also follow this reform.


Is it true that Martin Luther was calling for killing Hebrew people? Is it true that Martin Luther was calling in his books for killing Hebrew people and that the Lutherans of the USA in 1983 officially recanted this part of Luther's writings?

Alright I might be one of the few people on this earth that 1) loves the Jewish people, 2) Has married a true Jew by descent, who converted to Christianity after our marriage. 3) Will publish the worst dirt on Luther that can be found. 4) Will then be so crazy as to defend Luther, not against his sin here but in how it should be viewed in context and as still being a man of God.

Note: It is not possible for me to be brief on handling this question.

First the prosecution of that nasty Luther

Here is the worst of Luther's writings which is naturally seized upon by any wanting to portray Luther as personally hating the Jews if they refused to accept Christ and it is pretty offensive in deed:

  How, then, do we incur such terrible anger, envy, and hatred on the part of such great and holy children of God?
  There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses—namely, that God has struck them with “madness and blindness and confusion of mind.” So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them. (Luther's Works, Volume 47.266)

Then Luther goes on to suggest what should be actually done by the government.

  First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them...Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed...Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them...Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb...Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews...Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping...Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow. (Luther's Works, Volume 47.268 - 271)

Note: He does suggest they be allowed to live like gypsies in barns or group hostels and thinks the money in 'safekeeping' is there to be returned at least in part if they stop ridiculing the Christian faith and join the national religion, but the rest of these statements can pretty much be understood as is.

He only tones his ranting down slightly to distinguish between government treatment of blasphemers under law and personal vengeance by saying regular persons should not curse them are harm them, just see them as wicked while continuing in their blasphemy. He does also offer reverse sentiments and thinks they ought to treat them as 'brothers' if any become Christian, but these sentiments seem much too little and much too late to excuse his fiendish hate:

  And you, my dear gentlemen and friends who are pastors and preachers, I wish to remind very faithfully of your official duty, so that you too may warn your parishioners concerning their eternal harm, as you know how to do—namely, that they be on their guard against the Jews and avoid them so far as possible. They should not curse them or harm their persons, however. For the Jews have cursed and harmed themselves more than enough by cursing the Man Jesus of Nazareth, Mary’s son, which they unfortunately have been doing for over fourteen hundred years. (Luther's Works, Volume 47.274)

Summary Prosecution statement: Luther was a hateful man that hated the Jews (among others, the Pope being the most hated). Although he did not want people to personally injure them he supported the murder of good Rabbis who refused to stop publicly teaching and supported the heinous inhumane crimes of confiscating or destroying virtually all their livelihood and culture, offering Jews no more than meager slavery in near inhumane conditions. It is simply inexcusable on all accounts, and any Christian worth the name should denounce this part of Christian history forever. In fact Luther might properly be said to have planted early seeds of the Nazi regime, with his attitude leading to the more recently unparalleled crimes of Hitler during the holocaust.

The defense of that oh so lovable Luther

First, as deplorable and terrible as this is we should keep in mind at the time in history this was fairly standard treatment throughout the world for heretics and blasphemers. Before modern history, religious crimes were mixed with civil criminal codes and as a consequence Catholic governments burned Protestant heretics at the stake, and some later Protestant governments did similar evils, not to mention what the Turks and Christians did to each other. There was no proper division of church and state.

Second, this is the worst of Luther's writings and I would not equate his sins herein as necessarily worse than the low points of many godly men. He did not personally make love to his neighbor's wife and then personally orchestrate his murder as King David, the man after God's heart, for example. The truth is that we are so evil, even as Christians, which are still so much more righteous than unbelievers, that if our lives are analyzed by the morals of future generations none of us will smell like roses.

Third, although the Jews still believed in the Laws of Moses, Luther did not go so far as to cruelly propose that they be applied to them. If under the law a person simply picking up sticks on the Sabbath, or a child who is rebellious to their parents should be publicly executed. If under the law idolaters should be killed, their land burned, their houses burned, their woman turned into slaves etc., what would the Law prescribe for those who continued to reject their Jehovah in Christ? No, Luther did think, as every nation did at that time, that some of the Laws of Moses were useful for the state to apply, but he even at his worst held the Christian belief that the full extent of the Law of Moses should not be applied to those who owned it.

Fourth, most of his sentiments came from the common belief that Jewish people were getting unfair favorable treatment from the government, while others were being criminally prosecuted for blasphemy and the like, or other injustices, on smaller matters. This was believed to be due to their great deal of wealth and it did not seem right that foreigners to the country should take advantage of the poor German people through high interest rates, while the poor were being often treated so harshly by the rich. I find this to be a weak point of defense but it must be observed that the German people were prone to racism not 'out of the blue' or from mere religious grounds, but out of general jealousies that the poor often have against the rich, who often oppress them. As Christians are also with many sins, it is not surprising that the world's jealousies of the unbelieving German people, would creep in to some degree into the thoughts of Christians.

Fifth, once the faith of Luther was almost fully stomped out of Germany, the secular majority of Germans (who were never really Christian to begin with) eagerly received humanistic philosophies in the place of professed faith. The result is just like Christ's parable who said that if a demon is cast out (by natural religious reform) seven worse spirits will come back. That is what literally happened. National fake belief in Christ, like any national faith, was replaced with the belief of 'the survival of the fittest'. This lead to the idea that killing the weak was supported by nature. This lead to Hitler and the holocaust. The rejection of the faith of men like Luther resulted in actual mass murder of the Jews. Whereas Luther's momentary rantings did not actually result in anything. Luther may have been expressing the popular view at that time with the greatest amount of charity, so while accused on great sins, he may have actually been the salt that postponed the eventual racism that possessed the nation.

Summary Defense statement: Luther never pretended to be politically correct. He expressed his views quite emotionally. Like most religious leaders of that time in history, he felt some part of Old Testament law could be applied to society that most Western countries no longer believe, or comprehend at all. It is hard for us to understand but we would have probably acted poorer than Luther if we had lived at that time. When looking at all of Luther's writings as a whole, he held out the most loving, peaceful and truthful message that could be found anywhere else in the world. Luther was a man of God, and it is difficult to find anyone in history more worthy of the title. Luther was a man after God's own heart.

Conclusion

Was it true he was calling for the murder of Hebrew people? Yes in a weak sense. He positively lobbied for the charge that preaching the rejection of Christ in the synagogue should be considered to be as bad as heresy or blasphemy. No, in that he did not support personal hate or the harming of their persons. All in all I would say, no. Even in the case of blasphemy as a capital crime, the Bible never considers capital crimes, which people are all equally warned of before enacted by the state, as murder.

Is Luther's attitude in these passages excusable? I would say not at all. There is nothing in them that is consistent with the volumes of sentiments in the rest of his writings, or much more importantly in the New Testament. His attitudes here are not Christian to me. Do I think Luther was a man of God? Yes, without doubt. I can only say that without blinking for about half a dozen people I have read about.

Addendum

I have found something quite unexpected that has somewhat lessened my shock of Luther's point of failure. In quite a shocking discovery I have been surprised to find that Luther's basic fault was not breaking free of a well established common prejudice of his time. Not only did the German people and all of Europe have these intolerant views but Luther's recommendation to the government is actually more or less a repetition of a previous Jew converted to the Catholic faith in Germany just under forty years earlier! He actually thought this harsh and biting attitude would help him reach his fellow Jews as a form of a missionary effort. As nonsensical as this is it shows the public view of how conversions and influence could take place is far different from how we see things today.

The recommendations were first published by the Jew, Johannes Pfefferkorn in 1507.

  In Der Judenspiegel (Cologne, 1507), he demanded that the Jews should give up the practice of usury, work for their living, attend Christian sermons, and do away with the Books of the Talmud.[3] On the other hand, he condemned the persecution of the Jews as an obstacle to their conversion, and, in a pamphlet, Warnungsspiegel,[4] defended them against charges of murdering Christian children for ritual purposes.[3] In Warnungsspiegel, he professed to be a friend of the Jews, and desired to introduce Christianity among them for their own good.[4] He urged them to convince the Christian world that the Jews do not need Christian blood for their religious rites and advocated seizing the Talmud by force from them.[4] "The causes which hinder the Jews from becoming Christians," he wrote, "are three: first, usury; second, because they are not compelled to attend Christian churches to hear the sermons; and third, because they honor the Talmud."[4] (wiki Johannes_Pfefferkorn)

It is hardly objective to consider this subject without considering this unusual historical context. Something very hard I admit to even try to comprehend.


Do any of the seven ecumenical councils condemn slavery? Did any of the seven ecumenical councils respected both by Catholic and Orthodox Christians pronounce against slavery or allow slavery?

No, none of the ecumenical councils prohibit slavery, or deal with the subject to any significant extent.

The closest connection to slavery that I have found in the ecumenical councils is the Council of Chalcedon (fourth ecumenical council, AD 451), which ratified as ecumenical the canons of the Synod of Gangra (340).  This local council condemned several Manichaean practices, one of which was encouraging slaves to flee their masters.  The third canon reads:

  If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema.

Thus we don't find any specific opposition to slavery here.

Another local council, several centuries later, did speak against one form of slavery – ownership of Christians by Jews.  This council, the Twelfth of Toledo (681), placed a number of other restrictions on Jews as well.  But since it was never ratified by a subsequent ecumenical council, it's only tangentially relevant to your question.

Of course, there are many church fathers during this period who opposed the practice, often vehemently, but nonetheless their views were apparently not widespread enough to be included in any of the ecumenical councils.  Indeed, Wikipedia notes that even as late as the 15th and 16th centuries, several popes continued to call for slavery of non-Christians.


Does the Chalcedonian Definition mean Christ has two minds? In the seventh century two Christological doctrines were determined to be un-orthodox and in contradiction to the Chalcedonian Definition: that Christ has one "energy", and then that Christ has one will. Chalcedonian Christianity teaches that Jesus has two complete divine and human natures, united in one person, and as the will was understood to be a property of a nature and not a person, he must necessarily have two wills, otherwise he would not have two complete natures.

How far is this model to be extended? I have heard it said that not only does Christ have two wills, but also two minds. Is this an accurate interpretation of Chalcedonian theology?

Previous questions have asked if the Trinity possesses the faculties of will and mind by nature or persons; possessing these by nature means the three persons would each possess the one singular will or mind, possessing them by person means each have a distinct will or mind. My understanding is that Chalcedonian theology should strictly be understood as teaching that these faculties are possessed by nature. (Not all who take the label of Chalcedonian would agree though.) This leads to the confusing situation where Chalcedonians teach one will in the Godhead and two wills in Christ, and those who disagree teach three wills in the Godhead and one will in Christ! If this is an accurate summary of Chalcedonian theology, are all such faculties properties of nature rather than person?

These are deep questions that are difficult to answer, but I'll give it a shot. Most of what I'm going to say is derived from Oliver D. Crisp's book Divinity and Humanity.

How far is this model to be extended? I have heard it said that not only does Christ have two wills, but also two minds. Is this an accurate interpretation of Chalcedonian theology?

First this particular issue flows out of the later sixth ecumenical council, so technically its possible to accept Chalcedon without also accepting dyothelitism (two wills), but its generally considered that Chalcedon entails the findings of the later council.
If you read the proceedings of the Council of Constantinople, the reasoning flows from a basic principle exposited by Gregory of Nazianzus:

For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved.

So the model has to be extended far enough to cover everything that makes a human being a human being. If we take mind to consist of things like "will", "desire", "perception", "reason", etc. Then I think the answer is yes, dyothelitism entails that Christ has two minds, a human mind and a divine mind. For the divine mind is wholly different from a human mind:

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Similarly the council takes up several passages from scripture:

our Lord Jesus Christ himself, who is true and perfect God, and true and perfect man, in his holy Gospels shows forth in some instances human things, in others, divine, and still in others both together [...] Thus as man he prays to the Father to take away the cup of suffering, because in him our human nature was complete, sin only excepted, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not as I will, but as you will". And in another passage: "Not my will", but yours be done.
"Not my will", pertain to his humanity; through which also he is said, according to the teaching of Blessed Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles, to have become obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. Wherefore also it is taught us that he was obedient to his parents, which must piously be understood to refer to his voluntary obedience, not according to his divinity (by which he governs all things), but according to his humanity, by which he spontaneously submitted himself to his parents.

It keeps going in this fashion. But how can one person have two wills?
Here are two theological concepts which may help:
Perichoresis (mutual indwelling or interpenetration)
This doctrine is often used in discussions of the Trinity about how the 3 persons of the Trinity interrelate to one another, but it has also been used to describe how the human and divine natures of Christ relate.

Christ's humanity is in an intimate, perichoretic relation with the Word, which [...] is of a dgree of intimacy not enjoyed by other creatures

In Crisp's view the interpenetration is the result of "divine omnipresence" and that "penetration is asymmetrical: the relation originates in the divine and moves in the direction of the human nature only."
Because omnipresence means that the divine nature penetrates all of creation, Crisp sees the nature-perichoresis of Christ as "a difference of degree, rather than of kind". He offers this analogy:

A sword could be said, in a loose and non-philosophical sense, to be 'penetrated' by the heat of the blacksmith's furnace as he forges the blade [...] Presumably, if I were to place another sword in the furnace for a moment, it too would be 'penetrated' by the heat of the furnace and would become warm. But it would not be as hot as the first sword, which is being forged, and is a lot hotter than my own sword. The difference is one of quantity of heat, not quality of heat.

Though he's also careful to note that the hypostatic union is more than just nature-perichoresis. At any rate, this suggestion can make some sense out of Chalcedon's:

two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence

(As an aside, Perichoresis has an analogy to the eastern doctrine of theosis and the union we desire with God through sanctification... certainly not to the same degree, for Christ is unique, but it's definitely interesting to ponder)
Divine Krypsis (self-concealment)
In a discussion on divine knosis (self-emptying), Crisp suggests divine kryspis (self-concealment) as a more orthodox way to think about what's going on in the hypostatic union. The divine nature, though having essential attributes like omniscience and omnipresence, chooses not to use them during the period of his earthly ministry.

This krypsis Christology preserves what is required by a full-blooded Chalcedonianism: the Word does not relinquish or abdicate any of his divine attributes for the period of the earthly Incarnation. And it also makes sense of the notion of self-emptying that is alluded to in the New Testament: the human nature taken on by the Word in the Incarnation is limited and does not have access to those divine properties which the Word exercises

Hope that Helps.


Inheritance of original sin I was reading the answers to How is original sin transmitted?, when it occurred to me: isn't this contrary to scripture? Specifically:

Ezekiel 18:20

  The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

How does this tie together with the idea of "inheriting" blame from The Fall?

The way I understand it (and the way I've always seen it taught, whether at my Church, or in various other sermons/articles) is:

We inherit a sinful nature, meaning that we have a predilection for sin.

The evidence is pretty clear from observation.  Nobody has to teach a baby how to be selfish, it's part of our nature.  (Some would call it evolutionary survival instinct).  We don't have to teach our children to lie, to be hurtful, etc.  These traits are all natural, and as parents we spend a great deal of time teaching our children how to behave properly.  Misbehaving, and actions that are considered sinful don't need to be taught, they're simply in us from birth.

This is what is inherited from Adam's original sin.

Because we are born with that sin nature, every one of us has sinned at least once in our lives, and therefore we are guilty of our own sin.  This is what we are held accountable for.

One such article, as mentioned in the introduction can be found here.

There are other interpretations and disagreements on the concept of Original sin, so the way I understand it is not universal. Theopedia covers it from more angles.


Does the Catholic Church consider it sinful for couples who aren't able to conceive to have sex? Say a married couple has sex, no babies are coming out, they go to a doctor, and they find out that they can't have children due to certain complications.

Given that the Catholic church takes a strong stand on the reproductive nature of sexual activity, if they have sex, is it sinful?

I believe this to be a valid question because there can be confusion here.

  HUMANEA VITAE
  11. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.'' (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

The Church's position is that the married couple be open to procreation, not that procreation is mandatory.

Sarah had complications. Elizabeth had complications. Even our Blessed Mother had a missing element required for procreation.

Nothing is impossible For God.


What is the biblical basis for spiritual encounters leading to instant deliverance from addictions? I pattern that I discovered after watching many testimonies is that occasionally people report powerful spiritual encounters that have set them instantly free from behavioral addictions, substance addictions, compulsive behaviors, etc. The following are illustrative examples of this: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
Are there any scriptural parallels to this? Can we find records in Scripture of individuals who had notable spiritual encounters that led them to quit addictions instantly and without struggling?

I think it will be hard to draw a straight line between biblical accounts which are most often painted with a brush of possession and things which nowadays are labeled addiction.  The closest I've been able to come is with behaviors categorized as self-harm which Psychiatrists are beginning to understand as a form of addiction.  If that is the case then the demoniac of the Gadarenes, if examined today, may well be labeled with a self-harm addiction:

Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always crying out and cutting himself with stones. - Mark 5:5

This man is described in the bible as having an unclean spirit and also as being indwelt by many demons.  Luke tells us that this man had often been captured, bound, and kept under guard but that he always broke the bonds, escaped the guards, and returned naked to the wilds to wail and cut himself (Mark):

For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. (For many a time it had seized him. He was kept under guard and bound with chains and shackles, but he would break the bonds and be driven by the demon into the desert.) - Luke 8:29

If a line can be drawn between this man's behavior and what modern Psychiatry would consider self-harm addiction then the resolution of his affliction may be an example of the biblical basis you seek:

Then people went out to see what had happened, and they came to Jesus and found the man from whom the demons had gone, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind, and they were afraid. And those who had seen it told them how the demon-possessed man had been healed. - Luke 8:35-36

Note:  I am not suggesting that all mental illnesses or addictions are demon possessions nor am I suggesting that all biblical demon possessions are actually mislabeled mental illnesses.
If it can be accepted (with biblical basis) that Jesus has been granted power and authority to raise the dead, cast out demons, give sight to the blind, restore the lame, heal the sick, etc. and if it can be accepted that the biblical catalogue of miracles that Jesus performed is not a limiting comprehensive list, there should be little difficulty to accept the notion of instant deliverance from heroin addiction (for example) by the power of God.


How has the Chinese Patriotic Society modified the Bible in China? Listening to The World Over Live from April 8th 2021, Raymond Arroyo said that Xi Jianping was adding the "Ten Commandments of Xi" into the Bible.  That might have been hyperbole, but does anyone know what kinds of modifications that the Chinese Catholic Church has modified the Bible?
Do Chinese Catholics have access to vatican.va to see the Chinese Bible posted on their resource library?

I have not found anything regarding the Chinese Patriotic Society but there are reports that Xi Jinping has done as you suggest :

Catholic churches were torn down or denuded of their crosses and statues. Images of the Madonna and Child replaced with pictures of “People’s Leader” Xi Jinping. Signs posted outside evangelical churches forbidding anyone under the age of 18 from entering. The Ten Commandments painted over with quotes from Xi.

These are just some of the ways that the Chinese Communist Party is persecuting Christians in China.

How Xi Jinping Destroyed Religion and made himself a god
(Publicised  by the Central Tibetan Administration)

The Chinese President, like Chairman Mao before him, is trying to propose himself as an object of worship worthier than god. Bitter Winter has selected some typical reports about this bizarre, yet worrying development.

The Ten Commandments have been removed from nearly every Three-Self church and meeting venue in the county and replaced with quotations from Xi Jinping.

Bitter Winter .org


Why is it important for people who believe in Trinity that Jesus is God? I've heard a lot of discussion lately about whether Jesus is God, or not. I know there are arguments for Trinity, and arguments against. But I am wondering, why is it so important for those who believe in Trinity that Jesus is also God, and not only a perfect human being?

The main reason that it is important to Protestants, that Jesus is the son of God, is because that is the basic precept on which their salvation depends. If Jesus were not deity, (or God) he could not keep the promises he made concerning salvation.
All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation.
example:

John 10:15 through 18  As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

In the above passage what you will find, is that Jesus has promised that he will give salvation to his sheep. Jesus used the example of a shepherd because the people were familiar with sheep herding, and he also referred to those being saved as his sheep.
But the really important part is the part about his laying down his life and being able to take it up again.
If Jesus did not have the power to take up his own life again, how would he ever have the ability to give eternal life to anyone else?

John 10:28  And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
John 6:54  Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Unless Jesus were God and not just a good man all of these would be hollow promises, since salvation is of God:

Luke 3:6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.

The veracity of Jesus claim is found in the Old Testament. Particularly in the Book of Isaiah, which is most descriptive, and also in many other Prophets from many years before his birth, which is foretold in Isaiah chapter 7:

John 5:39  Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Isaiah 7:13 and 14 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Finally; if Jesus were not God all who have put their trust in Jesus for their Salvation would still be lost with no hope of eternal life.

John 6:37  All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Mark 2:17 When Jesus heard [it], he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Luke 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.


What is a practical Catholic definition of conscience? What is a practical Catholic definition of conscience?
I have never found one.

Fr. John Hardon, S.J.'s Catholic Dictionary entry for "conscience":

The judgment of the practical intellect deciding, from general principles of faith and reason, the goodness or badness of a way of acting that a person now faces.
It is an operation of the intellect and not of the feelings or even of the will. An action is right or wrong because of objective principles to which the mind must subscribe, not because a person subjectively feels that way or because his will wants it that way.
Conscience, therefore, is a specific act of the mind applying its knowledge to a concrete moral situation. What the mind decides in a given case depends on principles already in the mind.
These principles are presupposed as known to the mind, either from the light of natural reason reflecting on the data of creation, or from divine faith responding to God's supernatural revelation. Conscience does not produce these principles; it accepts them. Nor does not conscience pass judgment on the truths of reason and divine faith; it uses them as the premises from which to conclude whether something should be done (or should have been done) because it is good, or should be omitted (or should have been omitted) because it is bad. Its conclusions also apply to situations where the mind decides that something is permissible or preferable but not obligatory.
Always the role of conscience is to decide subjectively on the ethical propriety of a specific action, here and now, for this person, in these circumstances. But always, too, the decision is a mental conclusion derived from objective norms that conscience does not determine on its own, receiving it as given by the Author of nature and divine grace.


What scripture is James 4:5 referring to? James 4:5 (ESV)
  Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, "He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us"?

I don't know of an Old Testament passage similar to James's quote. What is he referring to?

There is indeed no Old Testament passage that contains those words, but there are a number of theories regarding what James was referring to. From Precept Austin:

  Ideas include (1) James quoted from some unknown apocryphal work (2)
  The quote is an unrecorded statement of James' half brother Jesus. (3)
  James quotes from some NT passage. (4) James was paraphrasing an OT
  passage. (5) James was not quoting a specific single passage, but is
  summarizing truths found in several OT passages. (6) Finally, some
  commentators (and Bible translations) do not treat the first half of
  verse 5 as a "formula" introducing a quotation but as a sentence which
  stands by itself. Several of the translations emphasize this latter
  view by dividing verse 5 into two separate sentences...

  Or think ye that the scripture speaketh in vain? Doth the spirit which
  he made to dwell in us long unto envying? (ASV)
  Think ye that the scripture speaks in vain? Does the Spirit which has
  taken his abode in us desire enviously? (Darby)
  Do you think what the scriptures have to say about this is a mere
  formality? Or do you imagine that this spirit of passionate jealousy
  is the Spirit he has caused to live in us? (Phillips)
  Or think ye that, in vain, the scripture speaketh? Is it, for envying,
  that the spirit which hath taken an abode within us doth crave?
  (Rotherdam)