Why is the pace of the “oration” in the Traditional Latin Mass so brisk? In a recent poll of those who attend the Traditional Latin Mass, a plurality indicated that their main reason for doing so was the reverence of it (The Latin Mass Among Millennials). I can appreciate this in theory. However, whenever I have gone to a TLM or watched one on YouTube, the priest seems to blast through the Latin at lightning speed. Is this actually the cadence at which native Roman speakers used to speak Latin? And if not, isn't it irreverent to say the Latin prayers so quickly, as though one is rushing to get through them without contemplating them?

Why is the pace of the “oration” in the Traditional Latin Mass so brisk?
I have noticed this very thing countless times and have actually stopped mentioning it to my wife.
It is not that the priests in question are not contemplating the words they recite or chant. Many priests who celebrate the Extraordinary Form were formed in seminaries of the Ordinary Form and that in itself is a difficult transition if not properly trained in how to say the Mass of Pope St. Pius V.
Celebrating the Divine Mysteries is an art that requires practice and patience. There are priests out there that have this down to such a point that it is almost like a second nature.
It comes down to the fact, that they are not instructed how to do so otherwise. I have been involved in the TLM my whole life long and have seen this phenomenon quite frequently.
When it comes down to chanting Gregorian Chant there are several schools of interpretation on how to sing the chant. When in the seminary, years ago, we were taught that lectures, Gospels and prayers could never be read or chanted too slow. It simply does not hold true anymore. The goes for priests of both the Ordinary Form of the Mass and the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.
The best a examples of Gregorian Chant being sung come from the monastic communities of Argentan (nuns) and Fontgombault (monks). The monks of Fontgombault believe that the nuns of Argentanare the masters of this sacred chant. Their postulants and novice practice chant for three hours a day. No wonder they can perform the sacred ceremonies as being part of their very being.
The monks of Fontgombault have the chants of the Feast of the Assumption on YouTube (Assumption 15th of August]2 and one notices how reposed the chant is. It is executed in such a manner that it uplifts the soul towards the Divine and things of Heaven. The monks of Fontgombault follow the older Solesmes Method.
Whether sung or recited this ultimately is a problem of training or lack thereof. Priests must prepare to celebrate the Mass properly and that should mean going over the the texts and practicing them in private. Parish priests often are left on their own in order to celebrate the Mass the best to interpret how such things are to be done.
I remember a young priest of the Ordinary Form, who once bragged that he was able to celebrate a Mass in 25 minutes and that included a hymn at the being and other one at the end. His bishop stepped in and correct the hot rod priest and insisted that Mass be more reverently celebrated.
I am not suggesting that the reason some of priests fall into this is because they're trying to manage the overall duration of the Mass, but for some it may be. I know personally of a few priests that do, but that is a small minority of priests.
Perceptions can be deceiving. If in doubt one can always charitably mention this to a priest, but in personal experience this will not have the desired outcome.
I do not believe that traditional priests would do this, but a little more personal practice of religious ceremonies would be beneficial.
Padre Pio habitually took 1.5 to 3 hours to celebrate his Mass according to the Extraordinary Form. I do not think anyone complained about it. The more reverence the Mass is prayed, the more the faithful will be there.

Padre Pio’s masses were also extraordinarily popular. The people would line up near the church door by 4:00 in the morning, or even earlier. Once the Mass commenced, it lasted anywhere from 1.5 to 3 hours. Pio constantly emphasized the importance of Mass: “It is easier for the earth to exist without the sun, than without the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”.  - Padre Pio


What arguments do the Church Fathers make for nocturnal emissions not being a sin? I've run across claims (although I'm having trouble digging them up again; I might be thinking of the implications in this reddit thread) that Augustine and Cassian were almost the only early Christian writers (before the medieval period, anyway) to deal with the problem of nocturnal emissions, and that both defended the phenomenon as being basically not sinful. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find their exact writings; translations usually seem to leave out Book VI (fornication/impurity/lust) of Cassian's Institutes (and for  that matter, his Conference 22 about Nocturnal Illusions), and shuffling through Augustine's writings on the general topic doesn't seem to turn up anything obvious. Perhaps I'm just looking for the wrong terms or at the wrong writings?

In particular, I'd like to analyze the reasons they gave for considering wet dreams to be non-sinful; did they focus solely on the involuntary aspect, or were there other considerations? Later it seems there was an occasional mention of nocturnal emissions without corresponding lustful dreams (and how this marked spiritual progress); how early was this distinction made?

Augustine addresses this question in his commentary On the Literal Meaning of Genesis: Book XII, section 31 (or 15 depending on your version).  He ascribes the lack of sin to the involuntariness.  He notes that well-disposed, chaste souls have some merits which "shine out even in dreams," although even chaste people may have nocturnal emissions.

John Cassian takes this up in Conference 22 of his Conferences, but it is hard to find a version that does not omit that conference.


How do Catholics support transubstantiation? As I understand it, the doctrine of transubstantiation maintains that bread and wine literally* become the body and blood of Christ... yet it is impossible to detect this. That is, they do not materially change, so we don't and can't notice, nor can we scientifically show any change.

I'm curious: how do Catholics support this view? Especially considering Jesus' statements that the bread and wine were His body and blood could easily be taken as symbolic.

*In the literal sense of "literally".

On the Meaning of Transubstantial

To me, the prefix "trans" is the key.

Transformation is change of form
Transmutation is change of shape
Transfiguration is change of appearance
Transubstantiation is the change of substance.

While often one will be related to another, it does not follow that there is a co-dependence. So, while it is possible that something will change forms but not substance or shape (ice will change to water to steam and back and, given the right circumstances, that  can all be in the same shape), it is also possible that the substance of a thing can change without a change to the form, shape, or appearance (this is not to discount Eucharistic miracles where both the form and substance of the host changed).

Admittedly, it is difficult to give an example of "change of substance" in nature, because so much of nature is of the same substance. But, there are two things we can use to inform our understanding. First, an example might be found in a piece of paper. A piece of paper, so long as there are no intelligible writings on it, is merely a piece of paper. Once it has intelligible markings, however, it becomes significant. It becomes a letter or a pamphlet or a list. Admittedly, this does have some easily detectable change of form, but the change in significance is far greater than any change in appearance.

The other fact we might use to inform ourselves on the nature of substance is the Creed. Recently, the Catholic Church finally corrected the english translation of the Nicene creed to read, "Consubstantial with the father" (I say finally because for forty odd years it was "one in being", which is a fundamentally incorrect translation of the Latin word, "consubstantialis"). This word implies that we should see the universe as having at least two meta-substances: natural and temporal vs. divine and eternal. It is in this sense that Catholics understand the word, "transubstantial." It is a piece of matter which becomes of the divine substance.

On Justification of the Doctrine

A hint of Scripture

The words of Christ have been debated quite frequently and it is very difficult to say that they must be held as figurative. While I am not willing to enter that debate fully at the moment (that would take quite a bit of time and effort), I will say that it is apparent that communion in the New Testament was something very important (celebrated daily) and that it was very significant (leading to illness if it was mistreated). Both of these strike rather substantial blows against a purely symbolic view of the breaking of the bread.

Theological Archeology

On the other hand, there is ample evidence from the first 1500 years of the Church that it was the universal belief that the eucharist represented a sacramental reality. This is known in two ways:

By "sacramental reality" we do not mean, "an outward and visible sign of an inward invisible grace," but rather that a sacrament is, "a symbol which effects itself." Now I know, that word, "symbol" does become a bit vague, but the phrase is understood (in context) to mean, "something which represents something else bringing about and becoming that which it represents." Therefore baptism is not merely the symbol of washing, but it is washing. Marriage is not simply two symbolizing unity, but it is two becoming unified. Eucharist is not merely a symbol of us receiving Christ, but it is actually the divine meal. This belief of the nature of the sacraments is something which is clearly present from the earliest of days.
Even if that sacramental understanding were missing, there is direct testimony to transubstantiation itself. I know of one eucharistic miracle which predated Constantine. And Ignatius of Antioch (my patron) may not say the word, "transubstantial" directly, but it is harder to say that he did not believe in it than it is to argue that he did (this plus Occam's Razor...).


Understanding Jesus counter argument against the Pharisees (Luke 11:19 ) I don't understand the following counter argument by Jesus.

  And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?
  Luke 11:19

One viewpoint is that the Pharisees' students (which I believe is what Jesus meant when he said sons) did try to cast out demons, but that would mean that I would be assuming that the Pharisees' student did actually cast out demons during that time.

1) Would the aforementioned argument be valid?

2) Are there any other ways of understanding Luke 11:19?  If yes, could someone please explain them?

The NET Bible makes an interesting point at footnote 54:

Most read your sons as a reference to Jewish exorcists (cf. “your followers,” L&N 9.4; for various views see D. L. Bock, Luke [BECNT], 2:1077-78), but more likely this is a reference to the disciples of Jesus themselves, who are also Jewish and have been healing as well (R. J. Shirock, “Whose Exorcists are they? The Referents of οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν at Matthew 12:27/Luke 11:19,” JSNT 46 [1992]: 41-51). If this is a reference to the disciples, then Jesus’ point is that it is not only him, but those associated with him whose power the hearers must assess. The following reference to judging also favors this reading.

(L&N refers to Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1988. JSNT refers to Journal for the Study of the New Testament)
In short, if Shirock (in JSNT) is correct about Jesus' your sons referring to his disciples and not the Pharisees' disciples (see Matthew 12:27 for the identification of Jesus' accusers as Pharisees), then Jesus' argument--to me--makes more sense. Jesus' disciples, after all, were chronologically the Pharisees' disciples (i.e., "sons") before they were Jesus' disciples (i.e., "sons"). That would not mean that Jesus' disciples were also Pharisees; it would mean that his disciples (and Jesus, for that matter!) were brought up in Judaism and under the umbrella of Jewish rabbis, teachers, and leaders within the Jewish faith, regardless of their "party" affiliation.
Jesus' reasoning in both Matthew and Luke can be summarized as follows:

If I in fact am casting out demons by the power of their prince, Beelzebub [viz., Satan], that must mean Satan is working against himself, and that does not make sense.

Moreover, if I have given your sons who were brought up under your tutelage but are now my sons the power to cast out demons--and they have done so successfully, then by whose power do they do so: mine or Satan's?

If the Pharisees were to have answered Jesus' question at this point, they would have been caught on the horns of a dilemma! If they said, "Our disciples (i.e., our sons) also cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub," then they (the Pharisees) would be guilty of bad teaching and are just as much to blame as Jesus!
If, however, the Pharisees' former disciples (i.e., their sons) who are now under the authority of Jesus and like Jesus are casting out demons by the finger of God (Luke 11:20), then they will wind up judging the Pharisees.
Moreover, if that be the case, then the kingdom of God which Jesus preaches has not only arrived on the scene but has also surpassed the kingdom with which the Pharisees are aligned. In other words, Jesus turned the Pharisees' argument back onto them, with the implication that they were aligned with the wrong kingdom!
Jesus was therefore accusing the Pharisees of being aligned with Satan's purposes, just as Pharaoh's magicians were in Moses' day, since by their admission only the finger of the one true God could perform the miracle of the gnats (Exodus 8:19).


Why does blood need to be put on the mercy seat In Leviticus 16:14-15 it says:

  And he shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with
  his finger on the front of the mercy seat on the east side, and in
  front of the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his
  finger seven times. Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering
  that is for the people and bring its blood inside the veil and do with
  its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it over the
  mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat.

I understand that sin leads to death and so forgiveness of sin comes through a sacrifice (something or someone dying in our place), however why is Aaron instructed to sprinkle the blood on the mercy seat? How does this point back to Jesus?

I'm looking for an Evangelical view

This practice of sprinkling the altar reminds the people of the blood of Jesus. Yes Jesus died, but when the Jews saw the blood, it reminded them of the huge, very real sacrifice Jesus would have to pay when He came. Goat blood on the actual altar, Jesus' blood on the altar of the cross.


How does Catholic Church view the new school of thought on multiplication of bread by Jesus? There is a school of thought going around that Jesus in fact did not multiply bread to feed the people who had gathered to listen to Him, but only prompted the faithful to share whatever eatables they had in stock . But then, we read at Mark 8:18-20 (NRSVCE) :

" Do  you have eyes, and fail to see? Do you have ears, and fail to hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you collect?” They said to him, “Twelve.”  “And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you collect?” And they said to him, “Seven.”

My question is: how does the Catholic Church view the new school of thought which apparently tries to `explain away' two important miracles performed by Jesus ?

Denial of miracles is one characteristic of the heresy of Modernism.

Doctors of the Church did not deny the miraculous nature of the multiplication of the loaves:

The multiplication of the loaves was not effected by way of creation, but by an addition of extraneous matter:The multiplication of the loaves was not effected by way of creation, but by an addition of extraneous matter transformed into loaves; hence Augustine says on Jn 6:1-14: ‘Whence He multiplieth a few grains into harvests, thence in His hands He multiplied the five loaves’: and it is clearly by a process of transformation that grains are multiplied into harvests. (Saint Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica III, q. 44, a.4, ad.4)
He who multiplied the five loaves is the same One who multiplies the fruits of the seeds:A great miracle: but we shall not wonder much at what was done, if we give heed to Him That did it. He multiplied the five loaves in the hands of them that brake them, who multiplieth the seeds that grow in the earth, so as that a few grains are sown, and whole barns are filled. But, because he doth this every year, no one marvels. Not the inconsiderableness of what is done, but its constancy takes away admiration of it. But when the Lord did these things, He spake to them that had understanding, not by words only, but even by the miracles themselves. (Saint Augustine. Sermon 130, no. 1)
In multiplying the loaves, Jesus showed his power over material nature:But what is divine is that the five loaves were more than sufficient for five thousand people, for clearly it was not this little food that had satisfied the people, but its multiplication. As you have seen, as though by an irrepressible font abounding from the hands of the distributors the fragments that they had not yet divided, and without daring to touch them with their fingers, the pieces spontaneously appeared. When such things are read, how can we be surprised with the perpetual movement of the waters or become amazed that the liquid fonts flow without ceasing when a solid substance expands in abundance? This happens to make us see that which we ordinarily do not see. By one thing He has manifested with such evidence that he is equally the Author of the others and the Creator of all of material nature, that was not found, but made, and supplies his successive contributions to the production of all things. (Saint Ambrose. Treatise on the Gospel of Saint Luke, bk. VI, no. 84-85)
The remains of the multiplication exceeded as fragments so that the absent might learn of the miracle:‘And He brake and gave to the disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.’ The five loaves He brake and gave, and the five multiplied themselves in the hands of the disciples. And not even here doth He stay the miracle, but He made them even to exceed; to exceed, not as whole loaves, but as fragments; to signify that of those loaves these were remains, and in order that the absent might learn what had been done. (Saint John Chrysostom. Homily on Matthew, Homily XLIX)
The fragments showed that what had taken place was no illusion:And I marvel not only at the quantity of loaves created, but besides the quantity, at the exactness of the surplus, that He caused the superabundance to be neither more nor less than just so much as He willed, fore-seeing how much they would consume; a thing which marked unspeakable power. The fragments then confirmed the matter, showing both these points; that what had taken place was no illusion, and that these were from the loaves by which the people had been fed. (Saint John Chrysostom. Homily on the Gospel of Saint John. Homily XLII)

source: Denzinger-Bergoglio, "Francis and the curious miracle of the non-multiplication of the loaves", which contains more magisterial teachings regarding the necessity of believing Christ's miracles


Catholic teachings on the new life in resurrected body I have a question on life after the resurrection. After the resurrection, will our souls have a room to feel a desire for some things that doesn't necessarily have to do with God (such as desire to have a good friendship/relationship with other resurrected beings in heavenly state, or perhaps some thoughts like "I wish I had a chance to do certain things before I experienced my physical death, etc)? or will we desire God and God only as resurrected being, and nothing else?

Thank you,

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say concerning the reserection of the dead.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a11.htm

Here is a breif excerpt from that page:
IN BRIEF

1015 "The flesh is the hinge of salvation" (Tertullian, De res. 8, 2:PL 2, 852). We believe in God who is creator of the flesh; we believe in the Word made flesh in order to redeem the flesh; we believe in the resurrection of the flesh, the fulfillment of both the creation and the redemption of the flesh.

1016 By death the soul is separated from the body, but in the resurrection God will give incorruptible life to our body, transformed by reunion with our soul. Just as Christ is risen and lives for ever, so all of us will rise at the last day.

1017 "We believe in the true resurrection of this flesh that we now possess" (Council of Lyons II: DS 854). We sow a corruptible body in the tomb, but he raises up an incorruptible body, a "spiritual body" (cf. 1 Cor 15:42-44).

1018 As a consequence of original sin, man must suffer "bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned" (GS § 18).

1019 Jesus, the Son of God, freely suffered death for us in complete and free submission to the will of God, his Father. By his death he has conquered death, and so opened the possibility of salvation to all men.

There is is more on the link.  There is no official understanding of what we will become when we are resurrected, the church does not say because it does not know the details of that transformation.  The only thing that can be known is that we will be much more than what we are or what we once were before the fall.

1 Cor 2:9 Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him

The details of what we will become if we endure to the end, has not been revealed to us.  It is a Mystery, what is not a mystery is what the alternative might be if we fail to accept his Grace.

What is understood however is that there is Happyness, Joy, Love contentment.  These are things that we find glimpses of in this world but they are so strong and so powerful that we can't hold onto them.  I for example, remember the great Joy and love of seeing my Children born, or when I realized that God was real and true how I felt.  When we are content we do not seek for things that take us away from that contentment we embrace it, we hold on to it and in the resurrection, unlike in our present forms, we will be able to hold on to it.

It may be that wanting more than what is perfect was that which caused the fall.  "lust of the eyes, Lust of the flesh, Pride of life"

Heaven and our bodily reserection will be contentment, rather than it's counter which is the wishing of more than that.

I welcome any additions to this answer.


What is the Biblical basis against the omnipresence of Satan? Many Christians pray and act as if Satan is right next to them all the time, tempting them to turn away from God, attacking them, etc., as though he were omnipresent...

What is the Biblical basis against Satan's omnipresence?

After some study, I can conclude that there is no biblical evidence for Satan being omnipresent.

God is omnipresent

in the sense that where ever we go, He is there:

  Psalm 139:7-8
  Where shall I go, away from Your Spirit, And where shall I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, there You are.

And also in the sense that He fills all in all:

  Ephesians 1:22-23 "And He subjected all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is His body, the fulness of the One who fills all in all."

Satan is not omnipresent

Satan, on the other hand, is cast out of heaven in Revelation 12, showing he has a physical presence which can be limited:

  Revelation 12:7   And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels went to war with the dragon. And the dragon warred and his angels.

  12:8   And they did not prevail, neither was their place found any longer in heaven.

  12:9   And the great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan, he who deceives the whole inhabited earth; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him.

The Bible also never says that Satan fills all things, but only that he can enter specific people for a purpose, the same as all evil spirits:

  Luke 22:3-4   And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot and was of the number of the twelve. And he went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers as to how he might deliver Him up to them.

  Acts 5:3   But Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to deceive the Holy Spirit and to put aside for yourself some of the proceeds of the land?


If a Mormon man turns from Mormonism, what happens to his Mormon wife when she dies? I'm told that according to Mormon doctrine, a Mormon woman has to be granted entry into heaven by her Mormon husband. Assuming my impression is correct, what would happen if the husband turned from Mormonism and then died? Would the wife need to quickly remarry a Mormon before she died in order to get to heaven?

Perhaps some things should be clarified a bit here first.
First part of your question:

I'm told that according to Mormon doctrine, a Mormon woman has to be granted entry into heaven by her Mormon husband. Assuming my impression is correct, ...

Not really.
Unmarried women can certainly get to heaven -- and depending on what you mean by "heaven," they don't even have to be Mormon. Remember, Mormons believe what Paul teaches about the three degrees of glory in 1 Corinthians more literally than most Christians, in that there are three main kingdoms, all of which are called "heaven."
Unmarried men and women can even obtain the highest kingdom. However, in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 131, more is revealed about this state (the celestial glory):

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

To obtain this highest glory is called exaltation. It is living like God does, being as He is.
Eternal marriage (also called a sealing), faithfully kept by both individuals, happens to be that final requirement.
I suppose then, that what you mean by "going to heaven" is actually exaltation.
So, on to the next part of your question:

... what would happen if the husband turned from Mormonism and then died?

He would face the consequences in the hereafter on his own. It's not even so much about turning from "Mormonism" at that point, but rather about breaking your covenants made in the temple, to God and to your wife, for which he would need to repent.

Would the wife need to quickly remarry a Mormon before she died in order to get to heaven?

No. Again, assuming you mean, "in order to obtain exaltation": LDS members are taught and reminded (a few sources below) that all who are faithful here will have everything and more made up after this life, and all who do not have the opportunity to be eternally married here will be able to be sealed to a faithful husband there, if that be their desire.
The eternal nature of covenants performed in the LDS temples means that whether they are made in this life or the next, they are in effect for eternity (cf. parable of the laborers in the vineyard).
Sources and further reading:

Gospel Principles, Chapter 38: Eternal Marriage "all Heavenly Father’s children who are faithful to their covenants in this life will have the opportunity to receive all the blessings of the gospel in the eternities, including the opportunity to have an eternal family."

The Eternal Blessings of Marriage (a recent General Conference address) "All things are possible to the Lord, and He keeps the promises He inspires His prophets to declare. Eternity is a long time. Have faith in those promises and live to be worthy of them so that in His time the Lord can make them come true in your life. With certainty, you will receive every promised blessing for which you are worthy."

To the Single Adult Sisters of the Church "I also recognize that not all women in the Church will have an opportunity for marriage and motherhood in mortality. But if those of you in this situation are worthy and endure faithfully, you can be assured of all blessings from a kind and loving Heavenly Father—and I emphasize all blessings. I assure you that if you have to wait even until the next life to be blessed with a choice companion, God will surely compensate you. Time is numbered only to man. God has your eternal perspective in mind."


I seek the LDS perspective concerning Cornelius and his house receiving the Holy Ghost without laying on of hands in Acts 10:44-45 While Yet Speaking - The Holy Ghost Preemptively Fell on All

  Acts 10:44  While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

(This_post) I found open, answered and accepted.  Support for the accepted answer was scant in my opinion, and I find the following interpretation of Joseph Smith to be incorrect, leaving me unsatisfied with the answer.

I am seeking a plausible explanation for two apparent contradictions. In Acts 10:44 above and 10:45 here:

  Acts 10:45  And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Not so much verse 44) but verse 45) uses the words "gift of the Holy Ghost."

  Joseph Smith taught:
     There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized, which was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the Gospel, but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized.  Had he not taken this sign or ordinance upon him, the Holy Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him. [See Acts 10:1–48.] Until he obeyed these ordinances and received the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of hands, according to the order of God, he could not have healed the sick or commanded an evil spirit to come out of a man, and it obey him; for the spirits might say unto him, as they did to the sons of Sceva: ‘Paul we know and Jesus we know, but who are ye?’ [See Acts 19:13–15.]
  History of the Church, 4:555; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on Mar. 20, 1842, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Wilford Woodruff.

What is of particular interest is that this happened without the laying on of hands.  I understand that the laying on of hand is not a dispensable role in the ordinance. Also, that the facilitators of these sacred ordinances must belong the Melchisedec priesthood.

Finally, the question:
Is there a satisfactory explanation for the order, and process of these events as they are here in Cornelius's case, and everyone with him? I see two parts here, the first is the order, and the second is no laying on of hands.

1)**Joseph Smith says that Cornelius could not receive the **gift of the Holy Ghost before baptism and claims that he does not.

  "he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized."

2) Joseph Smith teaches that Cornelius could only receive the gift of the Holy Ghostby the laying on of hands and It looks like Peter believed that they had when he says 47)"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?"

There is no contradiction to the claims Joseph Smith made. The Holy Ghost is

  the convincing power of God unto [them] of the truth of the Gospel (from Joseph Smith quote)

Cornelius and other's in the house felt the Holy Ghost witness to them of the truth. Verse 47 tells us that they felt the convincing power of God and Peter feels like there should now be nothing stopping them from being baptized:

  Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

The gift of the Holy Ghost coming after baptism is a doctrine found in the New Testament in Acts 2:38:

  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The gift of the Holy Ghost was given by laying on of hands Acts 19:6

  And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

See also Acts 8:14-22


Is a baptized but not confirmed Catholic really a Catholic? I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say (at church also) that a baptized but unconfirmed Catholic is not really a real Catholic.

I can understand that being educated about the faith and being confirmed are important but I think it's incorrect to say that a baptized person is not really a Catholic.

Is this incorrect?

I'm looking for the official stance of the Catholic Church.

Short answer: Yes, that is incorrect, because baptism in the Catholic Church makes you Catholic

CCC 1213

  Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to
  life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which
  gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed
  from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are
  incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism
  is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."

From CCC 1227

  The baptized have "put on Christ." Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is
  a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies.

From the Nicene Creed:
I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

The ideal path to receiving sacraments of initiation

The Easy answer is for children/minors: you are a Catholic when
baptized

Baptism received by a child or infant receives is the full sacrament of Baptism.  (It's not a kid's meal, it's the full serving).  During further faith formation the child is catechized and typically receives the sacraments of penance and reconciliation, and then receives the Eucharist around the age of reason (about 7 years old).  While the eventual goal is to continue catechizing and confirm the child they approach adulthood, the minor is not a partially Catholic.  Baptism has taken care of that.  (CCC 1227)
For Adult Entering the Faith (ideal case)

The restoration of the Catechumenate and the institution of the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults combines the reception of all three sacraments into one rite (Baptism, Eucharist, and Confirmation) sacraments of initiation, CCC 1212-1419 typically at the Easter Vigil mass.  (Canon Law allows for other methods of reception at the discretion of the local ordinary/bishop).

  Can.  881 It is desirable to celebrate the sacrament of confirmation
  in a church and during Mass; for a just and reasonable cause, however,
  it can be celebrated outside Mass and in any worthy place.

When this ideal path to entering into the Catholic communion is followed, the question never arises.

What about the less than ideal path, which is where your question is coming from?

First off, let's take a look at confirmation.  What is confirmation?

  Can.  879 The sacrament of confirmation strengthens the baptized
  and obliges them more firmly to be witnesses of Christ by word and
  deed and to spread and defend the faith. It imprints a character,
  enriches by the gift of the Holy Spirit the baptized continuing on the
  path of Christian initiation, and binds them more perfectly to the
  Church.

Even from the canon law perspective, the person is recognized as being in the Church (being Catholic) through Baptism; Confirmation "binds them more perfectly."

The Church does not penalize any of the faithful who were baptized as children, but who for one reason or another were not confirmed.  (CCC 1227 as above: one baptism).  What the church, both laity and clergy, are called to do is to encourage those baptized, but not yet confirmed, to undertake further faith formation and catechisis and then receive the sacrament of confirmation.  (CCC 1306-1311)

  1306 Every baptized person not yet confirmed can and should receive
  the sacrament of Confirmation. Since Baptism, Confirmation, and
  Eucharist form a unity, it follows that "the faithful are obliged to
  receive this sacrament at the appropriate time," for without
  Confirmation and Eucharist, Baptism is certainly valid and
  efficacious, but Christian initiation remains incomplete.

Bottom Line: even when Confirmation is delayed, the baptized Catholic is still Catholic.

More on the "ideal" case

  Christian Initiation

  1229 From the time of the apostles, becoming a Christian has been
  accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages. This
  journey can be covered rapidly or slowly, but certain essential
  elements will always have to be present: proclamation of the Word,
  acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, profession of faith,
  Baptism itself, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and admission to
  Eucharistic communion.

  1230 This initiation has varied greatly through the centuries
  according to circumstances. In the first centuries of the Church,
  Christian initiation saw considerable development. A long period of
  catechumenate included a series of preparatory rites, which were
  liturgical landmarks along the path of catechumenal preparation and
  culminated in the celebration of the sacraments of Christian
  initiation.

  1231 Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament
  is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the
  preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By
  its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal
  catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism,
  but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal
  growth. The catechism has its proper place here.

  1232 The second Vatican Council restored for the Latin Church "the
  catechumenate for adults, comprising several distinct steps." The
  rites for these stages are to be found in the Rite of Christian
  Initiation of Adults (RCIA). The Council also gives permission that:
  "In mission countries, in addition to what is furnished by the
  Christian tradition, those elements of initiation rites may be
  admitted which are already in use among some peoples insofar as they
  can be adapted to the Christian ritual."

  1233 Today in all the rites, Latin and Eastern, the Christian
  initiation of adults begins with their entry into the catechumenate
  and reaches its culmination in a single celebration of the three
  sacraments of initiation: Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist.
  In the Eastern rites the Christian initiation of infants also begins
  with Baptism followed immediately by Confirmation and the Eucharist,
  while in the Roman rite it is followed by years of catechesis before
  being completed later by Confirmation and the Eucharist, the summit of
  their Christian initiation.


Where is the verse about people sinning because they know God will forgive them? I've been trying to find a verse I read not too long ago for quite some time about sinning and knowing it's wrong, but sinning anyway because you know God will forgive you. I believe it also mentioned how people who do this are even lower than people who sin, then repent and attempt to stop doing it.

I know that verse-identification has had a lot of discussion on the meta as to whether it should be allowed, and it seems most people would only allow it under very strict circumstances. That said, I do agree with this opinion, but I also believe that this question meets those circumstances, so I will take the risk.

I have been trying to find this verse for quite some time, and I can't find it. I've searched Google, I've looked it up on quite a few websites, I've even asked other people if they had seen the verse. It's almost like it didn't exist, but I'm 100% certain that I saw it, but I can't find it.   Point is, I've searched all over the place to no avail, and I feel that this is the last place I can possibly turn.

If anyone has seen this verse I would very much appreciate it, but if you haven't seen this particular verse, I would rather you not answer with a verse that has a similar subject, but is different. Thanks.

Update:
I just asked a particular person who I hadn't asked before and they said they knew the verse I was talking about, but wasn't sure where it was. They hunted around for a while looking for it and found a few similar verses, but not the correct one. To make things easier, I will name a few verses it isn't, but it would be nigh impossible to track down every similar verse I've seen that isn't the one. I'll also include passages that have been put in answers that aren't it.

Many of the verses I have seen that aren't it are as follows:

Romans 6:15
Luke 13:3
1 John 5:18
Hebrews 10:26-31
2 Peter 2:20-21

There are other verses I have seen, but these verses were the closest ones I found.

This is a major point of Romans 6.  After arguing that the coming of the law increased the number of trespasses, and that subsequently "grace abounded all the more," Paul warns those who might twist his words:

6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
6:15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? (ESV)


Was Jesus God's only Son? In some places, the Bible uses wording like "children of God" or "sons of God". One example of this use is Genesis 6:2, and another is Galatians 3:26:

26 For through faith you are all children of God in Christ Jesus.
26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, [alternate translation]

I understand that many of these uses might be symbolic. Does the Bible clarify?
According to the Bible and Christian teaching, was Jesus the only Son of God?

The Greek word /monogenes/ is the key here.  I did a word study on this a number of years back.  The word actually appears in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrews Scriptures).  Here it is actually used in reference to Isaac as the /monogenes/ son of Abraham.

Interestingly enough, Isaac was not the only son of Abraham and not even the first.  Ishmael was born first and Abraham had six other children with Keturah after the death of Sarah.

So, /monogenes/ does not indicate that Isaac was the only son.  The word comes from the combination of two other words -- /mono/ and /genes/.  /mono/ is, of course, indicative of "one".  /genes/ refers to kind.  In a sense, then, /monogenes/ refers to "one of a kind" or "something wholly unlike any other".

Since Isaac was not the only son of Abraham, in what sense was he a one of a kind?  Specifically, he was unique in his miraculous birth and in his being the fulfillment of the promise of God.  No other son was born in fulfillment of a promise from God and no other son was born miraculously.

Jesus is identified as the /monogenes/ Son of God. Typically, this is translated as "Only Begotten".  It is true that Jesus is not the only son of God or only child of God, because, as you identified, all of those who have faith in Jesus are children of God.

However, the Sonship of Jesus is unique.  Indeed, His Sonship is wholly unlike any other.  Its uniqueness is that it is eternal.  Jesus never became a son of God, but was always the Son of God and God the Son.

So, Jesus is not the only son of God, but He is a Son unlike any other in His divinity.


How does the Catholic Church interpret "you are gods" in John 10:34? Jesus was blamed by the Jews because he made Himself God. So Jesus defended Himself by saying that is written in Ps 82 that 'you are gods'.

John 10:34 DRB  Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Psalms 82:6 DRB  I have said: You are gods and all of you the sons of the most High.

It is interpreted that to whom Gods word is said may be called God. But how can you make clear that we are not God while God is speaking to us in Jesus?

The Catholic Haydock Commentary, which collects the Fathers' and other Catholic scriptural scholars' commentaries, says for John 10:34:

  Ver. 34. This is addressed to princes established to govern the people of God. They are the image of God on earth by the authority they exercise, and which they have received from Him. --- Is it not written in your law, (under which were also comprehended the Psalms) I have said: you are Gods? &c. Christ here stops the mouths of the Jews, by an argument which they could not answer, that sometimes they were called Gods, who acted by God's authority. I have said: you are Gods. (Psalm lxxxi. 6.) But then he immediately declares, that it is not in this sense only that he is God. 1st, Because he has been sanctified by the Father, which St. Augustine and others understand of that infinite sanctification, which he has necessarily by always proceeding from the Father. Others expound it of a greater sanctity and fulness of grace above all other saints, given to him, even as he was man. But 2ndly, he adds at the same time, and confirms what he had often told them, that he was the Son of God, sent into the world: that his works shew that he was in the Father, and the Father in him. by this they saw that he was far from recalling or contradicting what he had said before. And therefore (ver. 30.[39.?]) they sought to apprehend him, and put him to death for blasphemy. (Witham) --- Eloim, which name of God was so called from judging, and may be interpreted judges. (Menochius)


At what point did Judaism and Christianity diverge? At what point did Judaism and Christianity diverge? Christianity and Judaism share the Old Testament (The Hebrew Bible), so it should be safe to assume they are the same people at least during the Old Testament period. Since when did they disagree?

tl;dr> It began in the Council of Jersualem (55 AD), but was cemented by the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.

1. Gentiles were released from Jewish custom
The divergence is clearly articulated in Acts 15 - at the "Council of Jerusalem," often pegged at 50 AD - roughly 20 years after the Crucifixion.  Acts 15 sets up the situation as follows:

Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. ... Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

In a nutshell - it's the old circumcision debate: Do converts need to go under the knife?
Prior to this disagreement, Christians were simply Jews that believed Jesus was the promised Messiah.  When the Messiah came, however, he expanded His mission in such a way as to afford salvation to the Gentiles.  (See Matthew 28:19-20)
Peter speaks to this issue, recalling the fact that the Gentiles were being added to the mission - first in Acts 10, and now again in Acts 15:

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.

That they were included, however, necessarily raised the question of whether or not converts needed to follow all the practices of the Jews.  Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and the other apostles were clear that the grace of God implied that Gentiles need not do Jewish custom.

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.

It was even suggested that a letter should be written, in which they said:

Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

By exempting the Gentiles from the rest of Jewish practice, a separate identity began to form.
2. The Persecution of the Jews diminished their importance in the Church, and vice versa
With the destruction of the Temple 15 years later, it simply became much harder to become a Jew.  As OzTorah writes:

In the post-destruction Jewish community, re-grouping and greater solidarity moved the Judeo-Christian group to the fringes. The earlier latitude towards separatist and fringe groups had become a luxury, especially when the Jesus party increasingly distanced themselves from their fellow Jews. The Judeo-Christians suffered a diminution in numbers and now, though not without an internal struggle, rebuilt and repositioned themselves as an increasingly gentile group, with new adherents directly coming to the new group without having to go through the old one first. They were not a monolithic community; they included at least four sub-groups (Ebionites A, Ebionites B, Nazarenes, Gnostic Sycretists and Elkesaites) – but they, like the Jews, needed to find sufficient unity to plan a secure future.
After much internal debate it became possible for an outsider to become a Christian without ever being part of Judaism, either through genealogy or choice. Could you be a Jew without the Sabbath, festivals, circumcision (Jews were not the only ancient people to view uncircumcision as shameful) and dietary laws? The answer was no – but you could become a Christian. Could you be a Jew without saying Sh’ma Yisra’el – “Hear, O Israel” and proclaiming the absolute invisibility and indivisibility of God? – again no: but you could become a Christian if you accepted the re-worked status of Jesus (developed and taught by Paul and his supporters though not necessarily required by a reading of Jesus’ own words) as messianic and part of divinity.
Sharper language than ever before began to be used in Judaism – it was a time of crisis when it was necessary to know where people stood – and heretics could no longer be treated with kid gloves. About the end of the century the Synagogue liturgy introduced a prayer which came to be known as Birkat HaMinim, the Blessing (Against) the Sectarians. ...
There was no authoritative decision to expel the Christians from Judaism but their exclusion came about gradually. The gentile Christians never were part of Judaism. The Jewish Christians still met halachic (Jewish legal) identity criteria but were excluded from officiating at Jewish worship because they regarded Birkat HaMinim as directed against them – whatever its motives at the time of its formulation – and their books were deemed to lack sanctity. In consequence they felt increasingly unwelcome. Christians were still found in the synagogues at least until the time of Jerome in the fifth century CE. In the second century CE Justin Martyr agreed that Jewish Christians who continued to follow Jewish usages were still to be considered “brethren” but as time went on, pressure was exerted to discourage the practice of Judaism by Christians.
The final break was due to the Romans when Jews (including Jewish Christians) were prohibited from entering Jerusalem; the re-established Jerusalem Church was thus an essentially gentile one.

With this polarization, rapid growth outside of Israel (Paul's ministry, in particular, was centered in Turkey and Greece, as evidenced by the fact that Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Phillippi, Colossae, and Thessaly all got their own books of the Bible!), and the persecution of the Jews inside of Israel, led to an imbalance of population.
Basically, the "Jews" dwindled and the "Gentiles" grew.  That, coupled with the freedom from the practices of the Jews eventually led to a situation where the church's early identity divested itself of its Jewishness.
3. By the second century, there was hostility
With the firm acceptance of Paul's letters by the end of the first, the anti-Judaizer faction became well entrenched.  By the middle of the second Century, some heretics like Marcion were already trying to remove any vestigial Jewish influence. When Marcion produced his first canonical list, for example, the entire Old Testament was relegated to non-canonical status. (Note - Marcionism is considered heretical nowadays, and rejecting the Old Testament is considered heretical, but I point it as way of evidence that the split had already occurred.)
By this time, "Christ-killer" rhetoric and the like, along with regional chauvinism prevailed, and enmity between the Jews and the Christians was mainstream. Modern Judaism took root in the Pharisitcal and Essene movements and followed its own course thereafter.


If God is omnipresent, is he also in hell? Using the 'separation from God' concept of hell - how can God be in all places yet still place a soul into a chasm of separation.

Yes, God is also in hell. The separation is not from his presence as if there was a place where his power was in effect, it's a severing of the relationship with him. The thing that will be experienced in hell is the wrath of God against sin rather than the grace of God towards his Son.

I have heard this quip from several preachers so I don't know who originated it, but there is a poignant quote about heaven and hell:

  Heaven is heaven because God is there. Hell is hell because God is there.

We see over and over again that Heaven is defined by the presence of God, his holy purifying presence. Unfortunately hell will also see some aspects of his presence as he stands in utter severity against those who would defy his holiness. Those there will be separated from his grace and any relationship with him other than being objects of wrath.


What is the difference between Reformed and Presbyterian I feel like this is a dumb question, but maybe, just maybe, I'm not the only one confused by this.  Maybe if I'm willing to stick my neck out and look stupid, the answer will be here for those poor confused saps who come after me.

It seems like I often hear the terms reformed and presbyterian being used interchangeably.  When I'm speaking about the presbyterian church, or rather, the reformed church, or... I often stumble over my words because I feel like I'm probably saying the wrong thing.

I know that in a technical sense, reformed refers mostly to the theology and presbyterian refers mostly to the church government (or maybe I'm wrong about that too), but, in every-day parlance, what do you call a church who follows in the tradition of John Calvin?  Surely you can't go around calling them churches-that-follow-in-the-tradition-of-John-Calvin.  It's a bit of a mouthful.  If I call them Presbyterian churches, will someone think I'm foolish and think that I don't know what I'm talking about?  If I call them Reformed churches, will I be wrong?  Is it just a matter of only usually being right?  Does it depend on the denomination/association?

What do Christians who belong to such churches call themselves?  Do they call themselves Presbyterians?  Reformed Christians?  Calvinists?  All three?  None of the above?  Am I going to offend someone by using the wrong term?

There are Reformed Christians who are not Presbyterian (or at least wouldn't call themselves that), especially in the Dutch or Continental tradition such as the RCUS and URCNA. There are also Presbyterians that are not Reformed, such as many in the PCUSA, who would be better called "liberal". Further complicating the matter is that, as Brian Johnson pointed out, the word 'Reformation' would certainly include Luther, who would not now be called Reformed or Presbyterian.

I would define someone who is Reformed as a "covenantal Calvinist". There are Calvinists who are not Reformed (such as Calvinistic Baptists like John Piper or John MacArthur or Mark Dever or Al Mohler, Jr.) I would define a Presbyterian as one who subscribes to the presbyterian form of church government, especially the plurality of elders elected by congregations and the connectedness of the wider Church. It is representative, like the American republic.

You could argue, actually, that some of the Dutch Reformed denominations such as the RCUS and URCNA are presbyterian in their polity, and there's some truth to that, even if their names for things are a bit different. Still, the label isn't usually applied to them, because they subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity (the Canons of Dordt, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Belgic Confession)  instead of the Westminster Standards (Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Directory for Public Worship, and the Form of Church Government).

Indeed, the Westminster Standards typify what it means to be Presbyterian and Reformed.

In summary: the words are not exactly synonymous, though they are certainly related in church history.

The typical Reformed or Presbyterian, rather than getting all uptight about whether you're using the words accurately or not, would, I hope, just try to explain it to you! Labels can be helpful, but they are only labels; sometimes they are not so helpful.


What is the dating for the last books of the Catholic Old Testament? What is the dating for the last books of the Catholic Old Testament?

I'm aware that Maccabees is pretty late, like 1XX BCE (end of 2nd century)... I'm wondering if any books are later than that.

Here is the list of Catholic Deuterocanonical books.  For each book, I researched the most accepted dating by scholars, consulting mostly the Dictionary of New Testament Background, IVP Press, 2000 edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, Jr. (indicated by DNTB) and Wikipedia.

Tobit: Story is set in 8th century BC, currently accepted dating is 225-175 BC (source: Wikipedia)
Wisdom of Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus): collection of sayings and instructions by a devout Jew between 196-175 BC, translated by his grandson into Greek for the benefit of the Jewish community in Egypt after he moved there in 132 BC (source: DNTB: "Sirach")
Judith: ancient Jewish novel in the Greco-Roman period, widely accepted date is 150 BC, reflecting the trauma of the Maccabean revolt (source: DNTB, "Judith")
Baruch (1 Baruch): pseudepigrapha originally composed in Hebrew as early as mid-second century BC but appended only to the Greek version of Jeremiah, (source: DNTB: "Baruch, Books of")
1 Maccabees: History beginning with the accession of Antiochus IV (175-164 BC) and ends with the accession of John Hyrcanus (135-104 BC), dating likely 125 BC (source: DNTB, "1 and 2 Maccabees")
2 Maccabees: History beginning with the reign of Seleucus IV (187-175 BC) and ends with the death of Judas Maccabeus in 162 BC, dating most likely 125 BC, matching the letter preface (source: DNTB, "1 and 2 Maccabees")
Additions to Esther: around 114 BC (source: Early Jewish Writings website article)
Additions to Jeremiah (Epistle of Jeremiah):no earlier than 540 BC and no later than 100 BC (fragment found in Qumran Cave 7), (source: Wikipedia)
Additions to Daniel: Greek additions were never part of the Hebrew text, part of LXX (circa 100 BC) (source: David A. deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha)
Wisdom of Solomon: anonymous work of Alexandrian Judaism, dating between 220 BC to 100 AD, most likely within the early Roman principate period (27 BC or later) (source: DNTB, "Wisdom of Solomon") or late 1st century BC to early 1st century AD (source:wikipedia)

As you can see below, most were written before 100 BC with the exception of the Wisdom of Solomon (late 1st century BC or early 1st century AD).


What is being said in Proverbs 25:2 Proverbs 25:2
  King James Version (KJV)
  2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

I came across this today on this site when I found the question "What does the Bible say about science?"

What is being said in this verse in context to the surrounding verses? Does it mean we are not supposed to learn new things or want to learn?

If we carefully consider the doublets of Chapter 25, we see that the immediate context (vv. 1-20) contains themes of judgment, court, and arbitration, all under the authority of a king.

1) It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.

The final doublet of the chapter should stick out because it directly refers to two doublets that occur earlier in the chapter. This makes it unique among the chapter and directs attention back to these. They are:

  Proverbs 26:2-3 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings. As the heavens are high and the earth is deep, so the hearts of kings are unsearchable.

  Proverbs26:16-17 If you find honey, eat just enough— too much of it, and you will vomit. Seldom set foot in your neighbor’s house— too much of you, and they will hate you.

The final doublet is:

  It is not good to eat too much honey, nor is it honorable to search out matters that are too deep. Like a city whose walls are broken through is a person who lacks self-control.

Because of the context, it should be clear that the verse in question is not in reference to science, which simply didn't exist at the time. The "wise men" of that day were not scientists, but alchemists. They investigated matter and spirit in a significantly different manner than science, though it was from their methods that science developed. Indeed, some philosophers of science find little difference between the two yet.

The verse discusses not scientific matters but matters under arbitration by a king.  That's why it is the glory of the king to search them out. When arbitrating, it brings the king honor if he searches out the matter to discover what actually happened so that he can judge rightly. Recall the famous story of Solomon's judgment at court.

  1 Kings 3:16 And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had rendered; and they feared the king, for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him to administer justice.

The verse in question contrasts the glory of God and that of kings. Kings seek matters out, and God conceals them... for a time. Recall the story of Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Daniel 2. When God reveals the dream and its meaning to Daniel, he gives thanks to God not as a concealer, but a revealer:

  Daniel 2:19-23 During the night the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision. Then Daniel praised the God of heaven and said:

  “Praise be to the name of God for ever and ever;
      wisdom and power are his.
  He changes times and seasons;
      he deposes kings and raises up others.
  He gives wisdom to the wise
      and knowledge to the discerning.
  He reveals deep and hidden things;
      he knows what lies in darkness,
      and light dwells with him.
  I thank and praise you, God of my ancestors:
      You have given me wisdom and power,
  you have made known to me what we asked of you,
      you have made known to us the dream of the king.”

So God indeed conceals the matter from the king but reveals it to his servant. That is, it is the glory of God to conceal some matters from some and reveal them to others in order to demonstrate his power. Indeed, by concealing the matter from Nebuchadnezzar and revealing it to Daniel, the King of the world fell prostrate before a servant and exclaimed:

  Daniel 2:47 47 The king said to Daniel, “Surely your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, for you were able to reveal this mystery.”

And so, it is the Glory of God to conceal a thing, and the glory of Kings to search them out.

2) As the heavens are high and the earth is deep, so the hearts of kings are unsearchable.

Proverbs 26:2 sets the ways of kings against the ways of God, the one searching out and the other concealing. This contrast in context demonstrates the greatness of God, who is able to conceal a thing from a king as he did from Nebuchadnezzar. Despite the king's ultimatum, none of the wise men could reveal the vision that God had put in the heart of the king. It begs the question: If the heart of a king is unsearchable, how much more unsearchable is that of God?

  Romans 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!

  Isaiah 40:28 Have you not known? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable.

It is not good to eat too much honey, nor is it honorable to search out matters that are too deep. The heart of God is unsearchable, and so should we not search it out? It is not honorable to seek out a thing that is too deep, and it is not honorable to search out the heart of God. That is, the one who works to seek it out is (has been) dishonored. This is the failure of the wise men of Israel.

  Psalm 118:20-23 This is the gate of the Lord
      through which the righteous may enter.
  I will give you thanks, for you answered me;
      you have become my salvation.
  The stone the builders rejected
      has become the cornerstone;
  the Lord has done this,
      and it is marvelous in our eyes.

Like the wise men in Nebuchadnezzar's court, they were dishonored when God revealed the truth of the matter.

  Jeremiah 2:26-27 "As the thief is shamed when he is discovered, So the house of Israel is shamed; They, their kings, their princes And their priests and their prophets, Who say to a tree, 'You are my father,' And to a stone, 'You gave me birth.' For they have turned their back to Me, And not their face;

  Colossians 2:15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

  1 Corinthians 2:22-24 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

In the context of judgment and arbitration by a king, extending the analogy as before implies that the manner by which God judges is unsearchable. We can not search out the heart of God for ourselves. But we can know it, in Messiah. Knowledge of the heart of God does not come by our effort (or deduction), but only comes by the Spirit of God.

  We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.  No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written:

  “What no eye has seen,
      what no ear has heard,
  and what no human mind has conceived”—
      the things God has prepared for those who love him—
  these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.

  The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, for,

  “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?”

  But we have the mind of Christ.


Are we blessed when people hurt us? Matthew 5:11 says,

  Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: (Douay-Rheims)

From the sound of it, this verse has mostly to do with what people say or think of us. But what about when people beat us? or steal from us? or poison us? Does the same blessing apply in those cases as well? Would they also be examples of persecution?

Are there other verses from the Sermon on the Mount, or the Gospels, or the NT, that deal with the theme of injury and the blessing that comes with it?

You are roughly correct, but with a condition I'll highlight later.

When you are beaten, stolen, poisoned, and the world reviles you, you have less and less that is in between you and God. It's very evident that the more gifts, accolades, status, riches one has of the world, they only serve to distance that person from God since it reinforces the notion that their own way, and not Jesus is what can provide their own Justification. Thus, the logical statement is If (riches of the world) then (generally further from God), the logical contrapositive states if (closer to God) then (no riches). The better way to say this is if you hold anything above God as closer to you, such as money, then you are further away from God. Thus, being hurt, beaten, stolen from, etc.. doesn't necessarily make you blessed per se, but rather, puts you in a position so that there is less between you and God. In a sense, the blessing is that you now have the position to be closer to God because you have less things of the world (ego, status, Money, health) to hold close to your heart.

Consider the rich ruler in Luke 18:18-29. Jesus tells him "Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." not because he's giving him a set of orders and 10-step-easy-guide-to-heaven, but rather, he knew what was in his heart - Money. And that the rich ruler held money closer to his heart than the Lord. So Jesus simply revealed to him what he truly valued in his heart.  If you are hurt, you are blessed in a sense because you certainly don't have self-pride getting in the way when you're on your back and out. Also, the Holy Spirit is closer when we are weak Romans 8:26.


Tree of Life in the Book of Mormon a common Near Eastern motif? In 1 Nephi 8, in the Book of Mormon, the prophet Lehi has a dream/vision in which he sees a Tree of Life. This dream is retold to his family. His son, Nephi, was particularly interested and desired to know not only if what his father said/saw was true, but what the interpretation of the "Tree of Life" was. In chapter 11, the interpretation is revealed -- it is symbolic of the love of God. Also, the fruit of the tree is symbolic of eternal life.

Elder Jeffrey R . Holland (modern apostle) taught that the tree of life is a symbol of Jesus Christ. He said: “The images of Christ and the tree [are] inextricably linked. … At the very outset of the Book of Mormon, … Christ is portrayed as the source of eternal life and joy, the living evidence of divine love, and the means whereby God will fulfill his covenant with the house of Israel and indeed the entire family of man, returning them all to their eternal promises” (Christ and the New Covenant [1997], 160, 162).

Anyway, is the Tree of Life antidote common in other Near Eastern mythologies?

Yes, the Tree of Life is actually a common motif for seemingly many cultures -- not just the Near East. Its symbol and presence in mythology transcends geographical boundaries. Just conducting a basic google search, Wikipedia  cites all the many cultures that have portrayed a "Tree of Life" in their mythical/philosophical traditions: Tree of life (Wikipedia). As you can see, the cultures range from Ancient Iran to China to Europe to Mesoamerica. The existence of trees all around the world and their ability to grow, blossom, and provide fruit likely make the "Tree of Life" a pan-human archetype, especially in regards to concepts concerning "eternal life" since trees play a prominent role in the circle of life.
In regards to specifically Near Eastern motifs, I would like to provide another resounding "yes." In fact, I'm not sure if you're aware, but it is also present in Judeo-Christian traditions. Everyone remembers the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" but many forget the other tree in the Garden of Eden -- "The Tree of Life." Genesis 2:9 and 3:22-24 mention the "Tree of Life" in the Garden of Eden story, which most certainly concerns the creation/purpose of mankind and can easily be linked to concepts of "eternal life." Many biblical scholars also propose that the chapter 22 of the Book of Revelation makes reference to it again since it addresses the new garden of paradise and only the righteous will be able to partake in such blessings.
Additionally, Proverbs 11:30 & 13:12 directly reference the Tree of Life, but in Proverbs it generally symbolizes wisdom. In the non-canonical Book of Enoch, the names of the righteous will be allowed to receive and taste the fruits of the "Tree of Life." Though non-canonical, it shows that the idea was alive and kicking in antiquity. Saint Isaac the Syrian (from Nineveh) circa 613 – 700 expands upon this matter and elucidates: "Paradise is the love of God, in which the bliss of all the beatitudes is contained," and that "the tree of life is the love of God." (Homily 72). This seems to correspond to the LDS interpretation that you have listed above.
But assuming you're interested in "Tree of Life" stories that would predate or concurrent with the lives of the LDS prophet Lehi (600 BCE), I would take a special look at The Epic of Gilgamesh. It doesn't cite a "Tree of Life" directly, but it focuses on Gilgamesh's quest for eternal life, and the elixir is a plant (which is unfortunately consumed by a snake). Not a direct relation, but the commonality of a plant providing immortality and a snake disrupting such plans seems pretty interesting.
Ancient Egyptian texts also center around the Acacia Nilotica, which is known as the "Tree of Life." The fruit of this tree would provide the partaker not only with eternal life, but with a plan, i.e. map, on how to get that point: The Tree of Life. This may be of peculiar interest to you since the Book of Mormon mentions that Lehi was learned in the language of the Egyptians.
There are also a series of panels in Nimrod (ancient Assyria), which depict a "Tree of Life" motif, but scholars have not reached a consensus on what it represents exactly, but you can find images of it here.
Your question did not ask about "Tree of Life" motifs in the New World, but since you are broaching a Mormon question, I figured you would have an interest in this region as well. Take a first look at the Wikipedia article I linked to see just how many pre-columbian cultures had Trees of Life in their iconography. But I would also recommend taking a gander at this source: Miller, Mary; Karl Taube (1993). The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya. London: Thames and Hudson. The trees connect the realms of the living with the realms of the heavens -- an axis mundi, if you will.
Clearly, there are many representations of it.


What to do with a Nun’s silver wedding band? I found the silver wedding band that belonged to a deceased nun. I do not know the family, but her name is engraved inside and dated 2-12-46.

What does the Church teach about the sacramental status of these objects and how can I avoid blasphemy while possessing them?

From what I've read, I think that the wedding band given to a consecrated religious sister is given to her for the same reason it is given to a married laywoman.

Womanhood is fulfilled quite as perfectly in a life of virginal chastity as in human marriage. And that is why the Church's ancient and elaborate ceremonial for the consecration of virgins has for its climax the placing of a wedding ring on the finger of the newly professed nun. "Receive this ring that marks you as a bride of God." She is wedded to Christ. And the union is fecund with souls.
The Cloistered Life of a Poor Clare

And, if so, I think it would have the same sacramental status as a wedding band.  Catholic radio host and author Lisa Duffy, writing for the The Catholic Match Institute, says:

Therefore, the Church does not mandate that wedding rings must be kept or cannot be sold. What  happens to a wedding ring is a very personal decision and is left up to the spouse who remains in possession of it

and with regards to selling it, she quotes the Catechism's part on the sin of simony saying that you can't sell it as a magic totem or that it's better because it was a nun's ring (historical reasons may increase the value, but not spiritual reasons).
My first instinct reading your question was that it should be melted down and disposed of on holy ground like you would with the ashes from old palms or busted blessed scapulars.  But maybe that isn't the case for wedding rings.

The Church provides us with sacramentals (primarily articles that have been blessed, such as rosaries, crucifixes, holy cards, etc. but can also be prayers), for the purposes of instilling piety in the one who possesses them.

So the blessing is on the person who holds the ring and the ring, it's not on the ring itself.


When did the practice of tearing one's own garments start among the Jews? At Matt 26: 63-65 we see:

"But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”   Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”   Then the high priest tore his robes, and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy."

I wish to know when the practice of tearing one's own garments in order to show protest, especially when one was witnessing apparent blasphemy, started among the Jews. Did such a practice have its origin in the scriptures ?

Genesis 37:29 (NIV):

  29 When Reuben returned to the cistern and saw that Joseph was not
  there, he tore his clothes.

This is the earliest mention I can find among the descendants of Abraham. Reuben, son of Jacob was distraught that his nine brothers had sold their other brother Joseph into slavery.

In Job, we see both Job and his three friends doing this:

  Job 1:20 At this, Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head.
  Then he fell to the ground in worship.

  Job 2:12 When they saw him from a distance, they could hardly
  recognize him; they began to weep aloud, and they tore their robes and
  sprinkled dust on their heads.

In this case, it was to display mourning and sympathy.

There is little agreement over when Job lived, but my best understanding is that he lived between Abraham and Moses. Thus this practice would seem to be common in the Ancient Near East, not just among Jews, but also among the neighboring peoples.


How did James Orr's view of the inspiration of the Bible differ from B. B. Warfield's? Two of the intellectual fathers of Christian fundamentalism, and ultimately evangelicalism, were James Orr and B. B. Warfield.  Both contributed to The Fundamentals, and are well known for opposing modernism and liberalism.

But recently I learned that they differed from one another on the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. John Woodbridge and Frank James, in Church History, II, 21.II.D, write:

  [Orr] was unwilling to draw the circle so tightly even though he shared a deep commitment to the supernatural inspiration of the Bible, which as such requires our sincere obedience.  He argued that strict inerrancy is "a most suicidal position" that had the potential for destroying the "whole edifice of belief in revealed religion."

Interestingly, Wikipedia says that James Orr believed in the "infallibility" of the Bible, which to me is normally, for practical purposes, a synonym of inerrancy.

Thus it appears that I don't have a full understanding of the debate over inerrancy and infallibility in fundamentalism and early evangelicalism.  To begin to understand this better, I'd like to know, from the actual writings of these two men, where they differed on this doctrine.

Professor of didactic and polemic theology at Princeton Seminary was B.B. Warfield. He upheld the view that a strong emphasis on the divine inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture was fundamental to orthodox theology.  During his tenure at Princeton (1887 – 1921) there was

“sustained divisive controversy over the nature of Scripture and the
newer methods of biblical scholarship known as ‘higher criticism’…
There was no question where Warfield stood – firmly against higher
criticism and any lessening of Princeton theology’s high view of
Scripture.”  The Story of Christian Theology by Roger E. Olson, p
560 (Apollos, 1999)

Warfield wrote various articles and books arguing that (ibid.)

“anything less than full belief in the complete inerrancy of the
original autographs of Scripture (the nonexistent original
manuscripts) would result in a slippery slide of theology into
liberalism and sheer relativism, for, Warfield argued, ‘we cannot
modify the doctrine of plenary inspiration in any of its essential
elements without undermining our confidence in the authority of the
apostles as teachers of doctrine,’ (14) and inerrancy is a necessary
ramification of inspiration.” (14 – The Inspiration and Authority of
the Bible p 181 ed. Samuel G. Craig, Philadelphia: Presbyterian &
Reformed, 1948)
Ibid. p 561 – “Inspired by the great revivals of evangelist Dwight
Lyman Moody (1837-1899), dismayed and appalled by the growing
influence of liberal theology, and energized by the resurgent
Protestant orthodoxy of Warfield and others, two wealthy Christian
businessmen sponsored the publication and free distribution of twelve
collections of essays by leading conservative Protestant scholars. The
Fundamentals were sent free of charge to thousands of pastors,
denominational leaders, professors and even YMCA directors all over
the United States. The first volume contained defenses of the virgin
birth by Scottish theologian James Orr and of the deity of Christ by
Warfield, as well as a critique of higher criticism of the Bible by a
Canadian Anglican canon.”

This is where we see Warfield and Orr conjoined (spiritually speaking). But on the matter of dealing with higher criticism, we might detect some desire on Warfield’s part to be slightly distanced when we read the following statements of Orr in his tome, The Problem of the OT Considered with Reference to Recent Criticism, by James Orr D.D. The Bross Prize, 1905 – book published by Charles Scribner’s Sons, N.Y., 1907, 627 pages
In his ‘Introductory : The Problem Stated’, on page 9 Orr says that current higher criticism of the Bible is the basic problem as the name

“has unfortunately come to be associated all but exclusively with a
method yielding a certain class of results ; but it has no necessary
connection with these results. “Higher Criticism” rightly understood
is simply the careful scrutiny, on the principles which it is
customary to apply to all literature, of the actual phenomena of the
Bible, with a view to deduce from these such conclusions as may be
warranted regarding the age, authorship, mode of composition, sources,
etc. of the different books ; and everyone who engages in such
inquiries, with whatever aim, is a “Higher Critic,” and cannot help
himself.”
pp 48-50  chapter **‘The OT from its own point of view’: subheading’ VI.
Revelation in Relation to its Record’: “If we thus let the Bible – Old
Testament and New – speak for itself, and compare it part with part :
still more if we yield ourselves to its power, and strive faithfully
to follow its directions, the conviction will irresistibly grow upon
us that it is right when it claims to be based on divine revelation.
Out of that revelation, the literature of revelation, which we call
the Bible, grows.  If this fact be firmly apprehended, particular
questions about the dates or placing of books will not much trouble
us.  The revelation is there, and no changes in the dates or placing
of books – none at least that are likely to be permanently brought out
– can do anything to alter its fundamental outlines.  If a revelation
has been given, it is surely the most natural thing in the world to
expect that a record should be made or kept of the stages of that
revelation, either by its original recipients, or by those who stood
within the circle of revelation, and possessed in an eminent degree
its spirit.  That such a literature exists, adequate in every respect
for making known to us the revelation, animated and penetrated by its
spirit, though in varying degrees – for the strictest upholder of
inspiration will hardly place the Books of Chronicles on the same
level with the Gospel of St. John – fitted as a whole infallibly to
accomplish its great end of making men wise unto salvation through
faith in Jesus Christ, and of completely furnishing the man of God
unto every good work – that such a literature exists, the only
ultimate proof that can be given is the existence of the book itself ;
and such a book as we have seen even from this brief inspection of its
character, we have in the Bible…
…The subject is taken hold of by its wrong end, when the test of
inspiration is sought primarily in minute inerrancy in external
details, as those of geography, or chronology, or of physical science.
Inspiration does not create the materials of its record: it works upon
them. (1 See Note C on Inspiration and the Materials of the Record.)
The crucial question is – Do the qualities which inspiration is
expressly declared to confer on Scripture – e.g. in such a classical
passage as 2 Tim. iii 15-17 – really belong to it?  We think it will
be difficult for any candid mind to deny that they do.  … The
Scripture fulfils the ends for which it was given ; no higher proof of
its inspiration can be demanded. (2 Cf. Westcott EOL in the Church
p14…)”

In this day and age, it may be questionable if Orr was using a form of words that could hint at less than 100% agreement with Warfield’s uncompromising stance on the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, but given the heightened state of battle-lines drawn on this issue in the late 1800s, it might have been arguable. Choice of words might (or might not) hint at slight deviations from what was, then, taken as necessary orthodoxy. Semantics, in other words, might have been in play, but in this day and age that is likely to pass us by.
It just might be possible that Orr’s reference to B.F. Westcott D.D., who promoted a Greek Text for the New Testament that deviated from that used in the Authorised Version of the Bible, was sufficient to claim Orr’s descent down the “slippery slide of theology into liberalism and sheer relativism”, as Warfield put it (as quoted by Olson, above).
Of course, it is nonsense to say that Orr slid into liberalism or relativism. But – back in the day – anyone not subscribing to an exact set of words and statements of confession about the divine inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture could be viewed with suspicion. There may well be a few phrases Orr used that Warfield would have objected to – not necessarily with warrant.


How do Aquinas and Hooker differ in their doctrine on communion? In The Screwtape Letters (1942), C. S. Lewis records the words of the devil Screwtape on church shopping and factionalism (letter 16):

  The real fun is working up hatred between those who say "mass" and those who say "holy communion" when neither party could possibly state the difference between, say, Hooker's doctrine and Thomas Aquinas', in any form which would hold water for five minutes.

What is the difference in doctrine on mass / communion, between Thomas Aquinas and Richard Hooker?

Please ensure answers will hold water for five minutes.

Aquinas taught transubstantiation -- the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist:

  Some men accordingly, not paying heed to these things, have contended that Christ's body and blood are not in this sacrament except as in a sign, a thing to be rejected as heretical, since it is contrary to Christ's words...

  He is invisibly under the species of this sacrament, wherever this sacrament is performed...

  Christ is not really present in the other sacraments, as in this [the Eucharist]; and therefore the substance of the matter remains in the other sacraments, but not in this...

  But here the substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ...

  Summa Theologica

Richard Hooker taught more along the lines of a pneumatic presence of Christ -- the elements are more than mere symbols, but the change takes place not in the elements, but is rather an act of God in the life of the believer:

  Eucharist is the sacrament of continued growth in Christ.  The Eucharistic elements are the bread and wine while the words are "this is my body," "this is my blood."  These words signify that the life of the body of Christ, the human nature, is present and active as grace in the Eucharist.  This grace flows from the Deity of Christ into his human nature, and from there, by the presence of the person of the risen Christ in his human and divine natures, the one fully present, the other present "after a sort."  This grace is then conveyed, as effects, to the bodies and souls of those who receive the bread and wine in faith.

    The bread and cup are his body and blood because they are causes instrumental upon the receipt whereof the participation of his body and blood ensueth.  For that which produceth any certain effect is not vainly nor improperly said to be that very effect whereunto it tendeth.  Every cause is in the effect which groweth from it.  Our souls and bodies quickened to eternal life are effects the cause whereof is the Person of Christ, his body and blood are the true wellspring out of which this life floweth (V.lxvii.5).

  From this it follows that the change that takes place in Eucharist is not in the elements themselves, but rather, in the believer that receives the elements.  "The real presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not therefore to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament" (V.lxvii.6)...

  Hooker cannot believe that the sacraments are bare memorials, or merely remembrances of Christ.  Hooker believed the sacraments actually conveyed effects whose cause was the risen Christ.

    For we take not baptism nor the eucharist for bare  resemblances or memorials of things absent, neither for naked signs and testimonies assuring us of grace received before, but (as they are indeed and in verity) for means effectual whereby God when we take the sacraments delivereth into our hands that grace available unto eternal life, which grace the sacraments represent or signify (V.lvii.5).

  Having rejected aspects of the Roman, Reformed, and Lutheran views, Hooker then observes that all parties agree on certain fundamental realities.  They agree on what God does in the Eucharist, though they disagree on how God does it.  The critical point, for Hooker, is what God does and not so much the how of God's action.

  (Robert Sanders, Richard Hooker on The Holy Eucharist)


How can one overcome lustful desires? Eighty Three percent of college students and fifty five percent of pastors are said to be addicted to pornography. (link) Even the most Godly men, like David (OT) has been trapped by these desires.

It seems that the more I try to fight these desires, the stronger that they become. It doesn't matter if I see a beautiful woman walking down the street or if I see an image on the internet, the passion inside of me begins to burn when I force myself to turn away.

  1 Corinthians 10:13 NIV

  No temptation has overtaken you except what
  is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be
  tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will
  also provide a way out so that you can endure it.

In my opinion it's very likely that masturbation is a sin that leads to death. In this next verse, I take it very literally, I see Jesus talking about our lusts and possibly even masturbation.

  Matthew 18:8 NIV

  If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw
  it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to
  have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

I do believe that if God says we are secure in our salvation, that nobody can change that. However I also believe that if God says we are no longer worthy of salvation because we have fallen away from the faith, then our security and salvation is lost.

Just before this verse above, Jesus was talking about plucking out your eye if it causes you to sin. I believe that Jesus is literally telling us that if we continue to lust and to gratify ourselves that we need to purge that evil from amung us and literally cut off your hand. I don't see this as a metiphor at all.

For those of you that will say you do not agree that cutting a part of your body off will solve this problem, keep in mind then that you call Jesus a liar.

  Hebrews 12:4 NIV

  In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point
  of shedding your blood.

He's right, I have not resisted to this point yet. So I want to know from the community, how do you resist temptation? How do you literally detoxify yourself from this poison?

I had reached a point after decades of struggling with this sin where I had just resigned myself to this being part of who I am.  I honestly figured I would just struggle with this sin for the rest of my life - I would take it to my grave.

For me, freedom came through Christopher West's teaching on Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body.  The MP3 version is available for free download.  It's not possible to do justice to Chris' 12 hour summation of years of JP II's teaching, but I'll try.

As I have analysed what happened through that teaching, I conclude that among other nuances the change in my thinking was to see clearly what it means to be a person created in the image of God as a body and a spirit in one cohesive being.  Fundamental was the understanding that other people, being in the image of God, are worthy, nay fundamentally entitled, to be treated with the dignity commensurate with being in the image of God.

Heavily entwined in all of this is the idea that the incarnation was always part of God's plan.  That the incarnate Jesus (even post resurrection in his glorified state) is a mysterious combination of Spirit and Body.  This causes me to elevate my body away from the "shell I am waiting to escape in the next life" to being an integral part of who I am which will be glorified and redeemed in the next life, but not thrown away.  Thus my body needs to be treated with dignity.

Suddenly my body was not something "bad" from which I was waiting to be freed, but it was part of the image of God in which I was created as a person, which was created "good".

Somewhere in there, washed in the Word of God, my mind was renewed and my heart was changed in a dramatic way.  I no longer desired to be "that man" who used other people, including my wife, for his own selfish gratification.  I began to see people differently; I began to see myself differently; for the first time in my life I was comfortable in my own skin.  I just didn't want to do that any more.  One day, I realized that somewhere over the previous 6 months I had been set free.

I finally realized what JP II was getting at when said words to the effect of: Freedom from the law is not freedom to break the law, but freedom to conform to the law in all it's meaning because I no longer desire in my heart that which is contrary to the law. (And with Paul I then concur, "the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good." - Rom 7:12).