How does 1 John 2:19 fit with the teaching that Christians can lose their salvation A common belief (not my own, but fairly common) is that believers may lose or abandon their salvation.  A number of Bible verses seem to contradict this teaching, but in particular, 1 John 2:19 stands out.

1 John 2:19 (NASB):

  They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

It seems like John is talking about a group (who he refers to as antichrists) who left their fellowship.  He seems to imply that if they had been true believers in the first place, they would not have left - which seems to directly contradict the doctrine of conditional security.

How do proponents of conditional security interpret this verse, so that it does not contradict conditional security?

I'm looking for either:

(1) A logical, natural alternate interpretation of the passage, or

(2) An answer that documents and references the most prevalent "conditional security friendly" interpretations of this passage, even if those interpretations are not necessarily logical or natural

I think we're reading our cultural bias back into this text - namely by saying that it is talking about salvation in terms of "in" or "out" and our soteriological context. That is a very Western concept, and was largely foreign to the apostles. For them, salvation was found only in the Church (referring here to the gathered and 'sent' people of God, not to a building nor an institution), and to leave the Church was to leave Christ. Granted, this has soteriological implications, but only as a consequence of leaving the Church and remaining outside of Her.

As you stated, the context of this passage is indeed that the αντιχριστοι (antichrists) were teaching false doctrine, and they "went out" from the κοινωνια (fellowship, participatory community, mentioned in 1:3). The verb μεμενηκεισαν implies that they did not remain, abide, reside, continue, stay, endure, and/or were no longer present. We don't have a great English term to effectively translate this concept, so you often see it in all of the above forms (and some others as well). μεμενηκεισαν is in pluperfect active indicative (3rd person plural) here, simply implying that their present absence is a "state or condition following a completed action in the past," i.e. they (voluntarily) went out and so they no longer remain.

The apostle's view was that we come to the Church and we remain in the Church because the Church is the Body of Christ, and to be one with Him is to be united to the Church, which is His Body (1 Corinthians 12:27; Romans 12:4). Thus there is no salvation outside the Church because there is no salvation apart from union with Christ's Body (which is the Church). This is very sacramental (mysterious) and involves how we are "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). Trying to understand this passage within the worldview of Western Christian philosophy compartmentalizes salvation as a divine singular action that can occur outside of the Church if someone confesses Jesus as Lord and believes several historical facts about Jesus, or simply prays a special prayer. James reminds us that even the demons believe correct doctrine about God (James 2:19) and that "faith apart from works is dead" (2:26).

So to clearly answer the question, this passage has little to do with the doctrines of conditional or unconditional security. The meaning is simply that these false teachers left the Church (the apostolic fellowship), and by doing so proved that they also left Christ; for to be one with Him is to be united to the Church, which is His Body.

As a further note, the theological implications of this passage have more to say about the concept of apostolic succession than they do about Western soteriology. The real question it should cause us to ask is whether or not we are part of the Church that has remained faithful to the teachings of the apostles.


What constitutes a half-tribe? In Joshua 1:12, Joshua talks to the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh.

What made the Manasseh a half-tribe? The Bible doesn't refer to the Reubenites and the Gadites as "half" a tribe. Why are they a "full" tribe compared to the tribe of Manasseh?

Manasseh was a full tribe. However, half of the tribe of Manasseh settled in the Holy Land proper, and half of the tribe of Manasseh, along with the full tribes of Reuben and Gad, settled on the other (east) side of the Jordan. The story is told in Numbers 32, which starts:

  Now the Reubenites and the Gadites owned a very great number of cattle. When they saw that the land of Jazer and the land of Gilead was a good place for cattle, the Gadites and the Reubenites came and spoke to Moses, to Eleazar the priest, and to the leaders of the congregation, saying, “Ataroth, Dibon, Jazer, Nimrah, Heshbon, Elealeh, Sebam, Nebo, and Beon—the land that the Lord subdued before the congregation of Israel—is a land for cattle; and your servants have cattle.” They continued, “If we have found favor in your sight, let this land be given to your servants for a possession; do not make us cross the Jordan.” (Numbers 32:1–5)

Later in the chapter, half of the tribe of Manasseh is included among the "Transjordan Tribes" that settled east of the Jordan River rather than in the Holy Land proper:

  Moses gave to them—to the Gadites and to the Reubenites and to the half-tribe of Manasseh son of Joseph—the kingdom of King Sihon of the Amorites and the kingdom of King Og of Bashan, the land and its towns, with the territories of the surrounding towns. And the Gadites rebuilt Dibon, Ataroth, Aroer, Atroth-shophan, Jazer, Jogbehah, Beth-nimrah, and Beth-haran, fortified cities, and folds for sheep. And the Reubenites rebuilt Heshbon, Elealeh, Kiriathaim, Nebo, and Baal-meon (some names being changed), and Sibmah; and they gave names to the towns that they rebuilt. The descendants of Machir son of Manasseh went to Gilead, captured it, and dispossessed the Amorites who were there; so Moses gave Gilead to Machir son of Manasseh, and he settled there. Jair son of Manasseh went and captured their villages, and renamed them Havvoth-jair. And Nobah went and captured Kenath and its villages, and renamed it Nobah after himself. (Numbers 32:33–42, italics added)

Here is a map showing the tribal allotments, including the allotments for half of the tribe of Manasseh east of Jordan, and half west of Jordan:

The half-tribe of Manasseh mentioned in Joshua 1:12 is the half of that tribe that settled east of the Jordan, along with the full tribes of Reuben and Gad.


Did Martin Luther express his views on suicide? In the 2003 movie Luther, there is a scene where, while still a monk, Martin Luther comes across a man who has hanged himself. The townspeople are treating the suicide with horror and disdain, believing him to be damned. But Luther says that the man is not responsible for "the demons in his mind" or something to that effect and personally chooses to bury the man as a reputable Christian would be.

In real life, did Luther ever express his views on suicide? And if so, is there any evidence that he expressed them while he was a monk, as he did in the movie?

It appears that Luther did in fact say something to that effect. In one of his Table Talks, Luther is recorded as saying:

  I don’t share the opinion that suicides are certainly to be damned.  My reason is that they do not wish to kill themselves but are overcome by the power of the devil. They are like a man who is murdered in the woods by a robber. However, this ought not be taught to the common people, lest Satan be given an opportunity to cause slaughter, and I recommend that the popular custom be strictly adhered to according to which it [the suicide’s corpse] is not carried over the threshold, etc. Such persons do not die by free choice or by law, but our Lord God will dispatch them as he executes a person through a robber. Magistrates should treat them quite strictly, although it is not plain that their souls are damned. However, they are examples by which our Lord God wishes to show that the devil is powerful and also that we should be diligent in prayer. But for these examples, we would not fear God. Hence he must teach us in this way.

I'm not sure what he means by "magistrates should treat them quite strictly", but there may have been legal consequences for the family of the suicide.

This is the only appearance of any discussion of suicide I can find, several years after Luther left the Catholic Church. I don't see any evidence that he made the sorts of statements while he was a monk.


What is "New Creation" according to Protestants? 2 Corinthians 5:17 (ESV)

  Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old
  has passed away; behold, the new has come.

It is undeniable that no one can live a perfect sinless life like Jesus. When we receive Jesus(i.e. born again), what exactly happens spiritually and physically? Our body remains the same, we are still struggling with sin(though it has reduced to some extend). What is the essence of New Creation? Is it a 'change of heart'? or 'change of character'? or 'rebirth of spirit'? How can we identify or know that something has changed? To what degree of 'change' is counted as a new creation? What is being created new here? It may be difficult to explain but attempts must have been made.

How have Mainstream Protestant denominations/theologians explained what is "New Creation"?

John 3:4-10 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old…Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God…Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

Notice that this conversation took place prior to the cross.  Also notice that Jesus chastised Nicodemus for not knowing of the new birth.

  Genesis 6:8 Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD

As did those mentioned in Hebrews 11 that placed their faith in the promise of God.

Christ said:

  John 1:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

This new thing that required the departure of Jesus Christ and His finished work established by His seat at the right hand of God the Father, enables the Holy Spirit to dwell in our heart.

The Holy Spirit bears out the will of God the Father.  Jesus Christ is the eternally-begotten, the manifest "will" of God the Father.  Christians are equipped by the overshadowing presence of the Holy Spirit to bear out Jesus Christ in their lives.  This is why Paul says:

  Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

So, the new creation is "Christ in our life"!


Papal Blessing at World Youth Day 2016 A friend of mine will be attending World Youth Day 2016 in Krakow, Poland from July 26 - August 1.

He will be carrying some religious medals with him to be blessed by Pope Francis. He is under the impression that if one holds up any religious objects during the closing blessing of the Papal Mass that these medals would be considered as being blessed by the Holy Father.

I have not heard of such a tradition or manner of obtaining a Papal Blessing for religious objects.

Can anyone confirm one way or another if such a blessing on medals is at all considered Papal or not?

Yes, the Holy Father does bless rosaries and other items such as medals at the conclusion of Papal Audiences, the Sunday Angelus, and Papal Masses!

The following is taken from The Pontifical North American College:

  At the conclusion of Papal Audiences, the Sunday Angelus, and Papal Masses, the Holy Father gives his Apostolic Blessing. This blessing is for you, your family, your loved ones, and any items for devotional use that you have brought with you to be blessed. Items such as rosaries, crucifixes, holy cards, or medals simply have to be with you to be blessed. The Holy Father has the intention of blessing these articles.

Outside of special papal events such as World Youth Day how can one obtain a rosary or medal blessed by the Pope when one can not be present in Rome?

  So what do you do if you want to get a rosary blessed by the pope but can't get to Rome?  Anything but buy one already blessed.  The best thing to do is talk to a priest or vowed religious you know.  Chances are he/she can connect you with someone who is going to Rome or who is currently studying or working there.  That person can take your item or obtain one there for you, get it blessed by the pope, and get it back to you.  People who travel to Rome are asked to do this all the time.  Another option is contacting one of the reputable gift shops in Rome. A decent store near the Vatican will sell you the item, then take it to the next General Audience and have it blessed for no additional charge. - From the Back of the Church


How can these inconsistencies about Jesus' tomb be explained? As it was mentioned in this topic, reading the New Testament side by side, one can pick up apparent inconsistencies in the Gospels by various Disciples. As it was suggested that they should be explained on a case by case basis, lets start with the opening of Jesus' tomb. Looking at four different passages:

  Mathew 28:2
  There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the
  Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the
  stone and sat on it.

  Mark 16:4-5 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed
  in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

  Luke 24:2-4 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but
  when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.
  While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that
  gleamed like lightning stood beside them.

  John 20:11-12 Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept,
  she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white,
  seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at
  the foot.

How is this inconsistency explained by theologians of the various major denominations of Christianity, especially the ones that believe in Biblical inerrancy?

So, in the first three cases (the Synoptic Gospels), you have:

an angel (or someone dressed in a gleaming white robe)
a stone rolled away

(And that's just one sentence)

In John, you have two angels, yes, but this purports to be the account of a different person. (the Synoptics have the disciples as the antecedent, John explicitly mentions Mary)

I suppose you could say that Matthew differs from Mark and Luke, in that one purports to narrate that the angel rolled it away, but before the disciples got there.

I'm not seeing the inconsistency -

There was one angel when the disciples came.
There were two when Mary came.

In all instances, you have angels, a rolled away stone, and an empty tomb.


How does John Owen account for scriptures which state that justification by faith is not through the law? In my previous inquiry regarding the history of the doctrine which states that Jesus Christ, in the days of his flesh, kept the law on behalf of others as 'passive obedience' (which law-keeping is then regarded as 'transferrable' to others) I discovered that John Owen is the first to state this doctrine, as such, and it first appears in creed-form - as far as I have yet found - in the Savoy Declaration of 1658.
I am now interested in what John Owen makes of scriptures which state that justification by faith is not accomplished by means of the works of the law. These scriptures appear to be categorical and are stating that, whether 'actively' or whether 'passively', justification by faith is simply not a matter - at all - of the works and deeds of the law.

... a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith of Jesus Christ [Galatians 2:16 (a), KJV]

For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified [Galatians 2:16 (b), KJV]

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident [Galatians 3:11 (a) KJV]

... for, the just shall live by faith [Galatians 3:11 (b) KJV]

... by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight [Romans 3:20 (a) KJV]

... for by the law is the knowledge of sin [Romans 3:20 (b) KJV]

Now, the righteousness of God, without the law, is manfested ... [Romans 3:21 (a) KJV]

... even the righteousnss of God by faith of Jesus Christ [Romans 3:21 (b) KJV]

These texts appear to preclude the possibility of any means of justification which involves law.
How does John Owen (or those who were his contemporaries) treat of these texts in the propagation of the concept of Jesus Christ keeping law, during the days of his flesh, in order that others may be justified ?

[NOTE : The concept of Jesus Christ 'fulfilling' the law is another concept. The law is fulfilled by righteous means. But it is not 'fulfilled' by flesh submitting to it, in order to seek justification. There seems to be some confusion on this point. I think scripture is quite clear about this, as the above texts show.]

Great question in my opinion. I would start by looking at Romans 8:2, Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6 and Proverbs 24:16.
Jesus is justified because He is God's Son. He is loved because of who He is. God also wants to "include" us in Christ as Paul talks about in Ephesians 1:13.
Romans 8:2 tells us that we are free from condemnation because we are set free in the inner man. This tells me that we are justified because we are born again. We are not born again because we are justified. We are justified, because, like Jesus we are sons and daughters, having been born again by the Holy Spirit.
We are able to be born again because the blood of Jesus made that possible for us while we were still sinners.
If we are in Christ, we are justified because we are in Christ's inner circle or His family, per se. How do we get into His family? If we trust God as Abraham did, then we are in the inner circle even if we are imperfect. This righteousness that is not perfect, but that trusts God can be seen in Proverbs 24:16. Galatians 3:6 and Romans 4:3 talk about Abraham trusting God and thus being justified.
Jesus trusted the Father. His trust in God is different than ours though because He didn't carry the same corrupted nature that we had before being in Christ and so His trust in the Father led to total sinlessness during His life on Earth.
A lot of the problems here are that the translators of the New Testament translate the verb and noun of the same root differently. The noun is translated as "faith" and the verb is translated as "believe". The exact same word conjure 2 quite different ideas in the English language here. Hebrews 11 shows us that they both basically mean "trust" - confidence of what we do not see.
We are saved by grace through trust, would be an appropriate translation of Paul's statement. It makes it far less mystical sounding and actually is what it is.
NEXT
"but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works." - Romans 9:31-32a
Romans 9:31-32 is crucial. It shows us that the law is not the opposite of faith. You can practice the law by faith or practice the law by works. Practicing the law by faith is good and Biblical, but it shows that the practicing of the law must be the fruit of faith and that faith is how you are justified. And this makes sense logically too.
I don't refrain from murdering so that I will be justified before God. I refrain from murdering because I'm not psychologically damaged, and thus I love the people in my life. You can't be justified by following the law. You are justified by trusting Jesus, and then you learn from Jesus about how to act righteously as you trust Him.
Practicing the law by works: my interpretation is that some Jews didn't trust God at all and were practicing the law to try and tie God's hands as far as allowing them into the Kingdom. It just doesn't and will never work that way. Grace is uncoerced favor. God is the decider of who is let in, and the one condition for Him letting someone in is trusting Him.
Justification is through trust in God. Works of the law are the fruit of that trust. For us sinless perfection will only come after a lifetime + more of practicing and being retrained by the Father Himself in the next life. For Jesus He was able to live in sinless perfection in this life because He didn't have a corrupted nature.
Jesus was legitimately able to die on our behalf because He was the pure spotless lamb, but that language of being pure and spotless is about freedom from corruption. The law teaches how to avoid corruption, it doesn't gain us any kind of standing with God. It's like sin is a cliff. Not jumping off the cliff isn't an accomplishment, but it prevents you from being destroyed. Jesus didn't get destroyed. That's good, but it was His powerful uncorrupted nature that made Him able to die on our behalf, not anything He accomplished by following the law.
Basically, following the law isn't an accomplishment that caused Jesus to be able to coerce God into saving us. Coercion just isn't part of the equation. Following the law kept Jesus free from corruption so He would have organic power to set us free.
Basically Jesus kept the law because it was the righteous thing to do and righteousness is in His nature. Keeping the law didn't gain Him anything before God, but failing to keep the law would have lost Him the ability to intercede on our behalf. There is a middle place where WHO HE IS causes Him to be able to intercede just as WHO HE IS made Him able to live righteously. He is that He is. He is the pure and spotless lamb.


At what time did the scourging at the pillar take place on Good Friday? I have read some of the post on the accounts that took place between the time of the last supper through the crucifixion hour including the trials.
what time would the scourging at the pillar taken place?

The scourging of Jesus happened immediately after Barabbas had been released, so it would have been about 7 or 8 am on Friday morning.

When harmonizing between the book of John, and the synoptic gospels, it is necessary to bare in mind that John used 'Roman time' and the others used 'Jewish time.'  So, the following references show "the 6th hour" (roman) as 6am, and "the 3rd hour" (jewish) as 9 am.

FRI 6 am: Pilate’s decision:

  It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, "Behold your
  King!" They cried out, "Away with him, away with him, crucify him!"
  Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests
  answered, "We have no king but Caesar." So he delivered him over to
  them to be crucified. (John 19:13-16)

FRI 7:30 am (approx): Jesus scourged:

  So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas,
  and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. (Mark
  15:15)

FRI 9 am: Jesus crucified:

  And it was the third hour when they crucified him. (Mk 15:25)


How to pronounce references in the Bible? If you see a reference to (2 Mc 7:1, 20-31) tomorrow's Old Testament reading  how are you supposed to pronounce that?  And what if it spans two different chapters?

In Catechism class, sometimes I need to ask kids to look stuff up referenced like that and I don't know how to succinctly say it to them.  Other times they need to say the reference while reading something in the textbook and they always skip it because they don't know how to say it.

What I want is a pronunciation guide to go with the style guide for referencing bible passages that the publishers of the Faith life Series would expect me to teach the kids, so we can read their books.

Second Maccabees seven one and twenty through thirty-one.

Or to be more explicit:

  Second Maccabees chapter seven, verses one and twenty through thirty-one.


How do the rites for a first and second marriage (after death of a spouse) differ in the Orthodox Church? If an Eastern Orthodox parishioner becomes a widow(er) and decides to remarry, what are the differences between what it will look like in their first and second marriage? What are the reasons for the differences?

And does it vary based on which Orthodox church?

There are distinct differences in the tone of the two marriage rites of the Orthodox Church. The second is distinctly penitential, with the priest praying specifically for the Lord to have mercy on the couple who have come forward to be married a second time. An excerpt of the prayer following the exchange of rings during the betrothal:

  O Master, Lord our God, who sparest all and providest for all, who
   knowest the secrets of men and hast understanding of all things: Do thou
   the Fashioner and Creator, who knowest the weakness of human nature,
  cleanse our sins, and forgive the transgression of thy servants, calling
   them to repentance, granting them remission of iniquities, cleansing of
   sins, and forgiveness of transgressions, whether voluntary or involuntary.
   O thou who didst forgive Rahab the harlot, and didst accept the repentance
   of the Publican, remember not our sins of ignorance from our youth up.
   For if thou shouldest mark iniquity, O Lord, Lord who should stand before
   thee? Or what flesh should be justified before thee?

Contrast that with the prayer immediately following the exchange of rings during the betrothal in the Rite of [a first] Marriage, an excerpt:

  For thou, O Lord, hast declared that a pledge should be given and confirmed in all things. By a ring, power was given to Joseph in Egypt; by a ring, Daniel was glorified in the land of Babylon; by a ring, the uprightness of Tamar was revealed; by a ring, our Heavenly Father showed His bounty upon His Son, for He said: Bring the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and make merry. By thine own right hand, O Lord, thou didst arm Moses in the Red Sea; by thy true word, the heavens were established and the foundations of the earth were made firm; and the right hands of thy servants also shall be blessed by thy mighty work and by thine upraised arm. And, O Lord our God, do thou now bless this putting on of rings with thy heavenly benediction; and let thine Angel go before them all the days of their life...

There are a few differences that are noted in the text I have linked below for further information, of note is the solemn entrance of the wedding party and that the wedding dress may not be white. Some Orthodox Churches may have their own regulations and protocols, and the presiding priest may even make judgement calls based upon his knowledge of the couples' situation. What's more, some jurisdictions may require counseling and/or meeting with and receiving the explicit blessing of a Hierarch.

In any case, the differences between the two Rites exist because the Church desires to recognize and proclaim the sanctity and holiness inherent in the mystery of matrimony. It is only right to do so because the Orthodox Church believes it to be just that, a Holy Mystery (or Sacrament in the vernacular of the West) that is imminent and occurs just once in the life of the couple. See the OCA's statements on this:

  According to the Orthodox teaching, only one marriage can contain the perfect meaning and significance which Christ has given to this reality. Thus, the Orthodox Christian tradition encourages widows and widowers to remain faithful to their spouses who are dead to this world but alive in Christ. The Orthodox tradition also, by the same principle, considers temporary “living together,” casual sexual relations, sexual relations with many different people, sexual relations between members of thie same sex, and the breakdown of marriages in separation and divorce, all as contrary to the human perfection revealed by God in Christ. Through penance, however, and with the sincere confession of sins and the genuine promise of a good life together, the Orthodox Church does have a service of second marriage for those who have not been able to fulfill the ideal conditions of marriage as taught by Christ. It is the practice of the Church as well not to exclude members of second marriages from the sacrament of holy communion if they desire sincerely to be in eucharistic fellowship with God, and if they fulfill all other conditions for participation in the life of the Church.

Since that is the case, the Church moves to draw a distinction between the two rites, the first being joyous and a celebration of the receiving the full outpouring of Christ's blessing and grace into the Mystery, with the second being granted out of Christ's abundant mercy, in the understanding of human weakness and our shortcomings, and that to be able to marry a second time is due to the extension of God's abundant grace and deep compassion for mankind, not man's right or privilege. Thus we see the penitential, almost sorrowful tone weaving through the Second Marriage Rite and climaxing with the joyous prayers of the service of crowning in the end.

See here for the full text of the Marriage Rite and here for the full text of the Rite for a Second Marriage.


Biblical significance of the gifts given to Jesus Is there any spiritual significance to the gifts the Magi brought – Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh – after they were led by a “star” to Bethlehem where they worshiped the young child Jesus?  Why would this caravan of astronomers present expensive gifts to Joseph, Mary and their young child unless they were aware of the significance of his birth?  Here is the biblical background information:

Matthew 2:1-6: After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, in the time of King Herod, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem saying, “Where is the one who is born king of the Jews?  For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”  When King Herod heard this he was alarmed, and all Jerusalem with him.  After assembling all the chief priests and experts in the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born.  “In Bethlehem of Judea,” they said, “for it is written this way by the prophet:  ‘And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are in no way least among the rulers of Judah, for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’”

Matthew 2:7-12: Then Herod privately summoned the wise men and determined from them when the star had appeared.  He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and look carefully for the child. When you find him, inform me so that I can go and worship him as well.”  After listening to the king they left, and once again the star they saw when it rose led them until it stopped above the place where the child was.  When they saw the star they shouted joyfully.  As they came into the house and saw the child with Mary his mother, they bowed down and worshiped him. They opened their treasure boxes and gave him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.  After being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they went back by another route to their own country.

I realise there are different traditions surrounding this advent, but what I’m looking for is biblical references to the significance of gold, frankincense and myrrh.  Also, I would like to know if there are any Christian references (from old hymns, for example) that suggest the spiritual significance of these expensive gifts that were presented to the infant king.

Biblical References to Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh:
Gold is a highly valued commodity – not just for its beauty and use in jewellery and decorations, but also for its status.  The Bible describes the wealth of King Solomon and how the Queen of Sheba gave Solomon 120 talents of gold (about 4 tons).  Solomon also received 666 talents of gold every year – that’s 22.5 tons of the stuff!  Check out 1 Kings 10:10, 14 and 2 Chronicles 9:1-12.  In the Bible, gold is a symbol of royal status and of kingship.
Frankincense is a very expensive aromatic resin used in incense and in perfumes.  It comes from the Boswellia tree which is found in India, Somalia and Ethiopia and in the Middle East.  In today’s currency, 15 ml. of the oil would cost about $90.  This exotic ingredient may have been used by the priests in temple worship in Jerusalem (see Exodus 30:1, 7-9; 40:5).  My NIV Study Bible notes that the fragrant smoke of the incense symbolised the prayers of God’s people.  Revelation 5:8 says the golden bowls full of incense are the prayers of the saints.
Myrrh is an aromatic resin which comes from various shrubs widely used in the ancient Near East.  It was used by the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans as perfume, as incense, and for medicinal purposes.  It was also used in royal (2 Chronicles 16:14) and Jewish burials.  Nicodemus brought a large quantity of myrrh and aloes and spices and cloths in which to wrap Jesus’ body (John 19:39).  No expense was spared for this royal burial.
Is there any spiritual significance to the gifts the Magi brought?  Returning to Matthew 2:7-12, we see how the magi bestowed honour and status upon the child as implied by the value of the gifts they presented.  It is possible that the gold, frankincense and myrrh were chosen for their special spiritual symbolism about Jesus himself—gold representing his kingship, frankincense a symbol of his priestly role, and myrrh a prefiguring of his death and embalming.  After all, there was nothing accidental in the time, the place and the manner of the birth of Jesus, and in the arrival of the magi who were searching for this new-born king.  Their gifts were not accidental, either.
Christian references to the symbolic meaning behind the gifts: Coincidentally, an old hymn was played at yesterday’s church service.  It is attributed to John H. Hopkins (1820-1891):

We three kings of Orient are, bearing gifts we travel afar, field and fountain, moor and mountain, following yonder star.

Born a king on Bethlehem’s plain, gold I bring to crown him again; King forever ceasing never, over us all to reign.

Frankincense for Jesus have I, God on earth yet Priest on high; prayer and praising all men raising, worship is earth’s reply.

Myrrh is mine, its bitter perfume tells of death and Calvary’s gloom; sorrowing, sighing, bleeding, dying, sealed in a stone cold tomb.

Glorious now, behold Him arise, King and God, and sacrifice!  Heaven sings out ‘Alleluia!’, ‘Amen!’ the earth replies.

No doubt there are earlier Christian references to the symbolism of the gifts, but this one puts it beautifully.


Why didn't Jesus give proof to the priests? On several occasions the High Jewish priests asked Jesus, that if He is the son of God, then demonstrate by doing X or Y.

I assume in all of these cases, he could have fulfilled the requests to show who He was - so why not just give them some proof?

Why did Jesus have to beat around the bush ?

Why not prove Himself for exponentially more followers?

Jesus did give them proof, on numerous occasions. He healed the sick, turned water into wine, and raised the dead. He showed how his coming fulfilled prophecy. But they still didn't believe.

Consider the story of the blind man Jesus healed in John 9. When he was brought to the Pharisees, did they say, "Zounds, Jesus restored the sight of a blind man! He must be a great prophet if not God himself!" No, they didn't. They had the man right there, giving his eye-witness (no pun intended) testimony. And what was their response? They had his parents brought in and questioned if he had really been blind. When they said he was, they demanded that the man explain how Jesus did it. Of course he didn't know. They pressed and pressed, and when he wouldn't recant his story, they had him excommunicated.

So when they asked for yet another sign, Jesus told them no, he had already given them all the proof they needed. If Jesus had come to some meeting of the priests and performed a miracle right in front of them, I'm sure they would have claimed it was an illusion or a magic trick.

It's just like some of the demands people make today. Every now and then an atheist will say, "If there really is a God, let him strike me down with lightning right now." Why doesn't God respond by sending lighting? Because: suppose that an atheist said that, and at that very moment a bolt of lightning tore through the roof and knocked him to the ground. Would all the atheists say, "Wow, we were wrong. God did indeed prove his existence"? I really really doubt it. Much more likely they would say, "Wow, what an astounding coincidence! Just as Bob made that comment about God striking him with lightning, he actually was struck by lightning! You know it would be funny if it wasn't that poor Bob was so badly hurt ..." Right? Does anyone seriously think otherwise?

At some point you have to say, he's done all these miracles, he's given you the Bible, you can believe it or not. In Luke 16:31, Jesus says, "If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead." I used to wonder what Jesus meant by this. For of course, if someone really came back from the dead, everyone would have to believe. How could they not? Then stories of near-death experiences came out, people who claimed to have died during surgery or in accidents and then been revived, and who talked about seeing a "being of light" and a heavenly -- or sometimes hellish -- place. Did this end the controversy, and everyone who heard became Christians? No. They said these people were making up stories or hallucinating. Maybe some people became convinced that there is life after death from such testimony, but I suspect it's few. I'm a Christian, I believed in life after death before I heard these stories, and they don't particularly convince me of anything. I don't know what to make of them.

If someone doesn't want to believe, no amount of evidence will convince him. God's not going to waste his time giving a 127th proof to someone who wasn't convinced by the first 126.


Do Baptists consider immersion baptisms of adults performed to be valid if performed by other denominations? Baptists are often distinguished by their belief in "believer's baptism" (i.e. that an adult must believe the tenets of faith in order to be baptized) and rejecting infant baptism (a.k.a. paedobaptism). This is often accompanied by a rejection of baptism not performed by full immersion. If an adult became Baptist and was previously baptized as an infant by having water poured on them (as is typically done in other large denominations like Catholicism and Lutheranism), then they would consider that to be invalid and would require them to be baptized again.

But say that a person were baptized within another denomination (such as Catholicism or Lutheranism) as an adult and by full immersion. They then became Baptist. Would Baptists consider this adult to be validly baptized, despite it not being performed in a Baptist church?

I’ve searched high and low to find an answer to this question, but the best I could come up with was this statement from the Baptist Union of Great Britain:

Many Baptists will want to welcome and affirm those who have a different story to tell of how they have been baptised and come to faith, while still declaring our conviction that believer’s baptism is the pattern that is set out for us in scripture:  https://www.baptist.org.uk/Groups/220594/Believers_Baptism.aspx

The Baptist Union has no problem in welcoming and affirming a Christian who wasn’t baptised in the manner proscribed by the Baptist church, but says nothing specific regarding the situation where an adult Christian was baptised by full water immersion within another denomination.
One U.K. Baptist church said this: “Because Baptists do not accept infant Baptism or christening as true baptism, then there is normally no objection to the baptism of a believer who has been christened as an infant.”  Again, this does not address the specific situation you ask about.
When I became a Christian 23 years ago I understood that I could not become a full member of the Baptist church unless I studied, understood and accepted their core tenants of belief and, as an adult, confessed Christ Jesus as my Lord and Saviour.  I had been baptised (full water immersion) as a 13 year old but I did not consider that baptism to be valid.  The minister had no problem with my request to be re-baptised.  Neither did he ever say he thought my original baptism was invalid.  He just waited for me to make up my own mind and after he was assured that I knew what I was doing, I made a public confession of my faith and was baptised by full water immersion.
In all the years of my association with the Baptist church I have never read any statement about the validity (or otherwise) of full immersion baptism of an adult performed by another denomination.  Of course, each Baptist church is an independent entity and each local Baptist church appoints its own ministers.  https://www.baptist.org.uk/Groups/220484/Who_are_Baptists.aspx
The question of full membership within the Baptist church may be dependent upon having submitted to believers’ baptism as performed by the Baptist church.  But nobody has to be a member of a church in order to be saved.  Becoming a member simply means you get to participate in the election of ministers/deacons and to vote when changes are put forward.  The importance of believer’s baptism within the Declaration of Principle of the Baptist Union of Great Britain may shed some light on your question:

The Basis of the Baptist Union is:

That our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, is the sole and absolute authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and that each Church has liberty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret and administer His laws.

That Christian Baptism is the immersion in water into the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, of those who have professed repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ who 'died for our sins according to the Scriptures; was buried, and rose again the third day'.

That it is the duty of every disciple to bear personal witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to take part in the evangelisation of the world. https://www.baptist.org.uk/Groups/220595/Declaration_of_Principle.aspx

Given the flexibility and independence within U.K. Baptist churches, I suspect that the Baptist Union does not take a hard and fast stand about the validity of full water baptisms performed by other denominations on consenting adults.  No doubt the subject is covered in theological college, but I’ve never seen anything in literature that can be accessed by laypersons.
The minister in the Baptist church I attended even performed a baptism by sprinkling water on the head of a very old lady who had been coming to the church for decades, and finally got round to confessing that she had been putting it off for too long.  Full water immersion would not have been an option, so any “rules” about baptism were waived.  Let’s face it, the point of salvation is to confess Christ Jesus as your Lord and Saviour and although Baptists have a firm view on how baptism should be done, they also reject the notion that salvation depends on that.


What is the nature of the theory for Pope Joan and the evidence that substantiates it? Two films, each called Pope Joan one in 1972 and one in 2009 repeat an old legend about a female Pope.  What is the nature of this theory, and is there anything to substantiate it?

Most scholars dismiss this is as fiction.  Indeed the Catholic Encyclopedia brings up multiple variations on the story, each of which can be easily debunked.

Perhaps the most damning proof that this is a legend would stem from the fact that nobody - including enemies at the time - ever made such accusations. From Wikipedia:

  It is also notable that enemies of the papacy in the 9th century make no mention of a female pope. For example, Photios I of Constantinople, who became Patriarch in 858 and was deposed by Pope Nicholas I in 863, was an enemy of the pope. He vehemently asserted his own authority as patriarch over that of the pope in Rome, and would have made the most of any scandal of that time regarding the papacy; but he never mentions the story once in any of his voluminous writings. Indeed, at one point he mentions "Leo and Benedict, successively great priests of the Roman Church".

This book is a book dedicated entirely to dealing with all the variations on the story, and debunking each.


Are other flood legends relevant to Christians? There are different flood legends among several civilizations that are similiar to the flood in the Bible.

  A flood myth or deluge myth is a mythical or religious story of a great flood sent by a deity or deities to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution. It is a theme widespread among many cultures, though it is perhaps best known in modern times through the biblical and Quranic account of Noah's Ark, the Hindu puranic story of Manu, through Deucalion in Greek mythology or Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh. (Wikipedia)

Are these other stories relevant to Christianity?
Do they describe the same event?
Why are they so similar and at the same time different (reasons and causes)
How can a valid exhaustive list of flood legends exist if it supposedly killed every man on earth besides the ones that were saved

Relevant? Yes. Universally viewed as supportive? No.

Scholars disagree on this. Some use those other accounts to lend credence to the Biblical account. Other scholars say that it is evidence that the author of Genesis stole from those accounts to make up the flood. Either way, it is a relevant discussion without universal agreement.

(In my personal opinion I think the other accounts give the Biblical account credibility)


If Jesus is "God's Only Son" then how can we all be God's children? In the Apostle's creed it states that "I believe in Jesus Christ God's only son our Lord" (ELCA). But many Christians say that we're all God's children, which is contradictory.

What does the Bible have to say about this?

Or are we God's grandchildren and Jesus' children?

The Latin text of the Apostle’s Creed (Symbolum Apostolicum) states,

Credo in Deum Patrem omnipoténtem, Creatórem cæli et terræ, et in Iesum Christum, Fílium Eius unicum, Dóminum nostrum, qui concéptus est de Spíritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub Póntio Piláto, crucifixus, mórtuus, et sepúltus, descéndit ad ínferos, tértia die resurréxit a mórtuis, ascéndit ad cælos, sedet ad déxteram Dei Patris omnipoténtis, inde ventúrus est iudicáre vivos et mórtuos.

While the Latin word unicum (lemma unicus) can certainly be translated into English by the word “only,”1 St. Jerome also used it in the Latin Vulgate to translate the Greek word μονογενὴς,2 meaning “only-begotten.”
For example, in Luke 7:12, it is written,

ΙΒʹ ὡς δὲ ἤγγισεν τῇ πύλῃ τῆς πόλεως καὶ ἰδού, ἐξεκομίζετο τεθνηκὼς υἱὸς μονογενὴς τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὴ ἦν χήρα καὶ ὄχλος τῆς πόλεως ἱκανὸς σὺν αὐτῇ TR, 1550
XII cum autem adpropinquaret portae civitatis et ecce defunctus efferebatur filius unicus matri suae et haec vidua erat et turba civitatis multa cum illa Vul

Other times, he translated μονογενὴς by the Latin word unigenitus,3 which is the Latin equivalent of “only-begotten.”4
Therefore, we could properly translate the Latin word unicum in the Apostles’ Creed as “only-begotten” (rather than “only”) without causing a contradiction, since Christians are also children (sons and daughters) of God,5 just as angels are sons of God.6
The important point to emphasize is the Lord Jesus Christ is the only-begotten (or, only-born) son of God the Father, by an eternal generation. The Lord Jesus Christ said, “I came out of God and have arrived.”7 This is the only instance where the Lord Jesus Christ says ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. In the LXX, this phrase, the lemma ἐξέρχομαι + the preposition ἐκ, is used in reference to the generation of offspring.8
On the other hand, Christians are sons of God by regeneration, i.e. being born again.9

References
Lewis, Charlton T.; Short, Charles. A New Latin Dictionary. New York: Harper, 1891.
Footnotes
1 Lewis & Short, unicus, p. 1932
2 Luke 7:12: unicus; Luke 8:42: unica; Luke 9:38: unicus
3 Jdg. 11:34: unigenita; John 1:14: unigeniti; John 1:18: unigenitus; John 3:16: unigenitum; John 3:18: unigeniti; Heb. 11:17: unigenitum; 1 John 4:9: unigenitum
4 Lewis & Short, unigenitus, p. 1932
5 cp. John 1:12: τέκνα θεοῦ
6 cp. Job 1:6. The LXX translates the Hebrew בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים into Greek as οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ.
7 John 8:42
8 cp. Gen. 15:4, 35:11


Best wishes for a good week at the end of the mass? The concluding rites of the holy mass in the ordinary form are somehow like this:

  If they are necessary, any brief announcements to the people follow here.

  Then the dismissal takes place. The Priest, facing the people and extending his hands, says:
  The Lord be with you.

  The people reply:
  And with your spirit.

  The Priest blesses the people, saying:
  May almighty God bless you: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

  The people reply:
  Amen.

In several parishes, I attend or have attended mass in (in Germany), the priest wishes the congregation a good Sunday and a successful week (with only slightly varying wording). The people respond with "Thank you, the same to you!" (German: "Danke gleichfalls.")

This typically takes place directly before "The Lord be with you" and is so prevalent and so highly formalised that a lot of catholics I encounter think this is an normal part of mass like the blessing or the ite missa est.

My Question is:

1) How widely spread is this custom in other parts of the world?

2) Are there information of how this custom started and whether some (magisterial) voice explicitly condone or forbid it.

Best wishes for a good week at the end of the mass?

I have noticed this practice either at the beginning of Mass or at the end of Mass in many different countries, at least since the late 1970s. It has almost become a local non-liturgical custom for some priests to speak off the cuff statements of this nature during the Sacred Liturgy of the Mass. I have lived in some four different countries and have stayed in another seven countries and am amazed how many times priests take the liberty to ad lib phrases into the Catholic liturgy that are neither encouraged or allowed by the rubrics. The rubrics not not say priests may ad lib such phrases during Mass. They just do it. I am not saying it is immoral, but it is simply not liturgically permitted. It lacks liturgical decorum to say the least.

This was simply not done in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass before Vatican II.

If it should not be said at the being of Mass, it should not be said at the end of Mass. The words may change, but the end result is the same.

  Priests should not wish their parishioners “Good morning” at the beginning of Mass, according to Archbishop Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle of Manila.

  The words “The Lord be with you” are sufficient, he said.

  “With all due respect, my brother-priests, I do not see the need for saying ‘Good morning’ and similar greetings when God’s Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist alone suffices,” he said.

  “Is not the expression ‘The Lord be with you’ more than enough?” he asked.

  Archbishop Tagle, who was speaking during his Corpus Christi Mass at the Santa Cruz Church in Manila, said that priests seem to give more emphasis on “Good morning” than on the all-important “The Lord be with you”.

  Anyone can wish someone good morning, but the words “The Lord be with you” are only heard during Mass, which is why they must be emphasised, he said.

  Some priests will repeat “Good morning” if they don’t hear the reply “Good morning, Father,” he said, but don’t seem at all concerned if no one responds to “The Lord be with you”.

  Archbishop Tagle’s comments were posted in an article
  on the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines website.

  The archbishop, who is often considered to be progressive rather than conservative, was appointed in 2011, and was made a cardinal in November 2012. - Don’t wish parishioners ‘good morning’ at the start of Mass, says Cardinal Tagle

The same could be be said for the end of Mass.

Thus there is no need to wish the faithful good morning, good week, happy Sunday or whatever the priest desires at the beginning or end of Mass.

As Cardinal Tagle states: “Is not the expression ‘The Lord be with you’ more than enough?”

The following is is somewhat indirectly related here.

  Curb the announcements.

  In an age when the secular world lays claim on most of our time, making a few announcements has become a pastoral necessity. Sunday Mass is often the only opportunity a pastor has to inform his flock concerning parish and community life. Few are lucky enough to have schedules that permit them to go to daily Mass, much less have their children attend Catholic schools, and gone are the days where the parish or church plays a central role in the life of the village.

  That being the reality, it’s wise to adhere closely to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal’s directive, inserting announcements after the liturgy of the Eucharist and before the dismissal, where they have the least chance of interrupting the framework of prayer set up by the liturgy. Welcoming statements from cantors or others before the procession even begins have nothing to do with the rite itself and are most likely utterances contrived for the purpose of artificially engaging the attention of the congregation. Announcements should not be made before Mass begins, save concerning matters absolutely necessary to the people’s understanding of that particular Mass itself or other issues prudentially suggested by the pastor.

  Mass doesn’t begin because a cantor gets up and proclaims when, where, and how it is to happen. Mass begins when the priest enters the church, with or without a cross bearer, book bearer, lector, or deacon.

  Don’t attempt a rousing good-bye.

  Mass ends with the words “The Mass is ended,” so nothing that happens after that should upstage what came before. The recessional, which is not mandatory, can be exuberant, of course. But many parishes have the problem of a great deal of talking and saying hello taking place after Mass, and upbeat recessionals can only make the problem worse. If the goal is to send people out into the world with a sense of what just took place, a recessional that recalls the quiet power of the whole liturgy is best. - Fourteen Easy Ways to Improve the Liturgy


What is the evidence that suggests that the Apostle Paul was married? I have heard people say over the years that it is likely that the Apostle Paul had been married at some point, perhaps prior to his conversion.  However, there doesn't seem to be any biblical evidence to this end.  What, then, is the evidence in support of this position?

The evidence for Paul being married is fairly scant.

He writes in 1 Corinthians 9:5:

"Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?"

The implication could be made that Paul was complaining about leaving some wife behind.

In Galatians 1:14, Paul says:

"I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers"

One of the traditions, especially if he was a member of the Sanhedrin (which he never outright claimed), is that eventually he would be married.  That said, there is nothing to say that he had necessarily progressed far enough to require a wife.
On the other side (that Paul was not married), the evidence is far more convincing

1 Corinthians 9:5 clearly implies there wasn't a woman travelling with him.

1 Corinthians 7:1-7 has Paul declaring that he has the gift of celibacy.

1 Corinthians 7:8 has Paul directly saying that he is not married -

8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.

The tense of the verb is ambiguous as to whether he was at one point married, however. As an aorist verb, the tense is de-emphasized in any event. In at least the NIV, the ‘[a]’ is a reference to a note that the Greek word is also used for ‘widower’.  Of the 4 occurrences of this word in the NT (all in this chapter) this is supposed to be the only nonadjective form and is supposed to include a masculine suffix.  Here and also at verse 40 in the context of widows, Paul personalises the message.  When read as ‘widowers’ this chapter has a natural flow of topics but as ‘unmarried’ there is repetition.
In any event, however, it is clear that even if Paul had been married at some point, by the time he had been to Corinth, he no longer was.


From an idealist perspective, what are the "seven spirits of God"? In Revelation, we see God along with the "Seven Spirits before his throne".

Revelation 1:4 (NIV)
John,
To the seven churches in the province of Asia:
Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne,

We see it again later in Revelation:

Revelation 5:6 (NIV)
Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.

Who/what are these seven spirits?  How are they "before the throne" and also "part of the lamb"?  (Or are these seven different spirits?)
I'm seeking the answers from the view that Revelation should not be taken literally--that it is somewhat metaphorical.  I presume these seven spirits to be a metaphor, but for what?

The seven spirits referenced in Revelation may refer to the spirits mentioned in Isaiah 11.

Spirit of the Lord
Spirit of wisdom
Spirit of understanding
Spirit of counsel
Spirit of might
Spirit of knowledge
Spirit of fear of the LORD

  1 A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
     from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
  2 The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him—
     the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
     the Spirit of counsel and of might,
     the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the LORD—

It may also refer to the seven qualities mentioned in 2 Peter 1:5-7.

goodness
knowledge
self-control
perseverence
godliness
mutual affection
love

  5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith
  goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge,
  self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance,
  godliness; 7 and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual
  affection, love.

As is the case with a lot of Revelation, I take the different references to the seven spirits of God as figurative representations of the spirits.  I do not believe there are physical manifestations of His spirit.

I believe the 7 spirits represent communicable attributes of God.  When they are sent out over the earth, we will receive these attributes fully.


What is God waiting for before He ends the world? I probably have this question since I'm very young. Here are some few sample answers that I've got:

He's waiting for the right time
Until the whole world bow knees and worship only God

IMHO, the longer God waits, the more people are going to hell. See how many people actually die each day without knowing Jesus. If God just ended the world now, wouldn't it be better?

So, what is God waiting for?

Actually, the Bible does have quite a direct answer to the question What is God waiting for?

  And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

  Matthew 24:14 (KJV)


Will blind people be blind in Heaven? Matthew 18:9, NIV:

  And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

Does this mean that people who are (or become) blind in this life will be blind in Heaven as well?

The logical extension of this idea would be, if you're in a car accident, and your legs are lost, and you become blind... then you die from complications a day later, you'll be a blind paraplegic in Heaven. Is this a fair understanding of the verse?

Isaiah 35:5-6a,10 NIV:

  Then will the eyes of the blind be opened
    and the ears of the deaf unstopped.
  6Then will the lame leap like a deer,
    and the mute tongue shout for joy.
  (verse 10 shows context of Zion)
  10 and those the LORD has rescued will return.
  They will enter Zion with singing;
    everlasting joy will crown their heads.
  Gladness and joy will overtake them,
    and sorrow and sighing will flee away.

Just because you enter one way, doesn't mean you will stay that way. As the language of Isaiah is written you will be made whole. Besides Jesus wasn't stating you WOULD enter eternal life mamed, He was saying even if you were to enter heaven mamed, Wouldn't that be better than all of you being thrown in the fire of hell? Check out this link for other scriptures related to getting a new body in heaven, http://www.crossroad.to/heaven/contents/new_bodies.htm


What is the biblical basis for only keeping the weekly Sabbath while disregarding all the other feasts/holy convocations (Lev 23, Num 28, 29)? Leviticus 23 introduces several appointed festivals/holy convocations. The chapter starts with:

The Lord said to Moses,
2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘These are my appointed festivals, the appointed festivals of the Lord, which you are to proclaim as sacred assemblies. - Lev 23:1-2 (NIV)

Then the festivals / holy convocations are enumerated:

The weekly Sabbath (Lev 23:3)
The Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Lev 23:4-8)
Offering the Firstfruits (Lev 23:9-14)
The Festival of Weeks (Lev 23:15-22)
The Festival of Trumpets (Lev 23:23-25)
The Day of Atonement (Lev 23:26-32)
The Festival of Tabernacles (Lev 23:33-44)

Similarly, in Numbers 28 and 29 we find a similar list:

Daily Offerings (Num 28:1-8)
Sabbath Offerings (Num 28:9-10)
Monthly Offerings (a.k.a. New Moons) (Num 28:11-15)
The Passover (Num 28:16-25)
The Festival of Weeks (Num 28:26-31)
The Festival of Trumpets (Num 29:1-6)
The Day of Atonement (Num 29:7-11)
The Festival of Tabernacles (Num 29:12-40)

It's not rare to come across Christians who claim that the weekly sabbath (Lev 23:3, Num 28:9-10) is still in effect, while all the other festivals and holy convocations are not (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4). What is the biblical basis for that claim?

As requested in the comments, I'll briefly summarize the core ideas presented by some of these sites:

This site (and this follow-up publication on the same site) basically claims that the weekly sabbath belongs to the moral law, whereas the remaining feasts and holy convocations belong to the ceremonial law, and therefore they conclude that the weekly sabbath still stands but the others are abolished because they were "shadows".

This site essentially says the same thing: it talks about the concepts of "ceremonial law" and "moral law", claims that the weekly sabbath in particular is "moral" rather than "ceremonial", and, thus, concludes that the weekly sabbath is still in effect.

A biblical basis for some Christians to claim that the weekly Sabbath is still in effect while the Feasts of Leviticus 23 need not be kept is that it's not clear that the Sabbath is included in the feasts of Leviticus 23 as a feast.
It could be that verse 2 ends by indicating that what is to follow is "concerning the feasts", verse 3 is a parenthetic instructing that Sabbath observance is not to be disregarded during the feasts, verse 4 begins with the introduction "these are the feasts of the Lord" and then verse 5 begins the instructions concerning the feasts.

23:2 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, These are the appointed feasts of the LORD that you shall proclaim as holy convocations; they are my appointed feasts.
Lev 23:3  “Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a
Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It
is a Sabbath to the LORD in all your dwelling places.
Lev 23:4  “These are the appointed feasts of the LORD, the holy
convocations, which you shall proclaim at the time appointed for
them.

Additionally, the question lists the feasts of Passover and of Unleavened Bread concurrently but if they are enumerated separately (as many hold they should be) then the feasts number 7 without the inclusion of Sabbath.  The two are often delineated in Leviticus 23:5-8 under the same (man-made) heading "The Passover" but they are clearly not concurrent.  The Passover is a single meal commemorating a single event and occurs on 14 Nissan and  Unleavened Bread is a seven day affair beginning on 15 Nissan:

In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight, is the LORD's Passover.  And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the LORD; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall not do any ordinary work. But you shall present a food offering to the LORD for seven days. On the seventh day is a holy convocation; you shall not do any ordinary work.” - Leviticus 23:5-8

Unleavened Bread is an example of a feast that lasts multiple days, starting and ending on holy convocations.  One of the feast days is, by necessity, a weekly Sabbath.  It is not the only feast which also incorporates a weekly Sabbath and so lends credence to the idea of verse 3 being a parenthetic reminder to keep the weekly Sabbath during the festivals.
This explanation does nothing to instruct or suggest whether the Church need or need not keep any or all of them beyond that the audience intended in verse 2 is "the children of Israel" (which thing is an entirely different question).


Do any Christian traditions claim to be antinomian? According to this Wikipedia article on antinomianism, some Christian traditions have been charged with antinomianism, but are there any that actually claim to be antinomian?

Definition:

an·ti·no·mi·an  [an-ti-noh-mee-uhn]
noun
a person who maintains that Christians are freed from the moral law by virtue of grace as set forth in the gospel.

Antinomian is quite a negative word. The kind hardly anyone likes to call themselves, even if it was factually correct. Try comparing to bastard, which has a factual meaning (an illegitimate child). Even though being born out of wedlock isn't very shameful nowadays, it's very rare that anyone calls themselves a bastard.

You may find individuals like the blogger Dr. White, who profess to be antinomian -- but even he begins by telling how insulting the word is:

  The word “antinomian” is a curse word of the highest degree in the church today.  To be charged as an antinomian is to be branded a libertine, careless in morality and one who cheapens the precious blood of our Savior.

Certainly there are antinomian churches, but they avoid using that unpleasant term of themselves.


Why does the Lord's Prayer instruct us to ask God to forgive us "as we forgive others"? When the disciples asked Jesus to teach them how to pray, He gave them this model commonly known as the Lord's Prayer.

  Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven,
     hallowed be your name.
    Your kingdom come, your will be done,
      on earth as it is in heaven.
     Give us this day our daily bread,
      and forgive us our debts,
      as we also have forgiven our debtors.
    And lead us not into temptation,
      but deliver us from evil.  Mathew 6:9-13 ESV

In it, we are to ask God to forgive our debts "as we also have forgiven our debtors".  The parallel passage in Luke is similar, but specifically mentions forgiveness of sins:

  And he said to them, “When you pray, say:
   “Father, hallowed be your name.
   Your kingdom come.
   Give us each day our daily bread,
    and forgive us our sins,
      for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us.
   And lead us not into temptation.”  Luke 11:2-4 ESV

I was discussing this with a couple friends last night, and one of them mentioned that we do not really want God to forgive us in the same manner that we forgive others, as that would be a much weaker, incomplete forgiveness.  In fact, we would much rather pray, "Father forgive us completely--wholly unlike how I am even able to forgive others."

I understand that we are encouraged to forgive others as completely as we can, but I also know my weakness in doing this.

So, again, why are we taught to ask God only to forgive us in the manner that we forgive others?  It seems we would want a much greater level of forgiveness--the kind of forgiveness that only God can give.

Forgiving others is very, very important. Firstly, we emphasize the primary importance of love in the life of a believer:

  The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 1 TImothy 1:5 NIV

Compare also the well known Great Commandment. The vital importance of forgiving others is made manifest when we realize that it is utterly impossible to truly love those we harbor unforgiveness towards (certainly from 'a pure heart' or 'with all our heart, mind, soul and strength' or 'as ourselves')- we deceive ourselves if we think so. The gospels are quite clear that the graceless attitude of unforgiveness will prevent us from receiving grace ourselves, in the succeeding verses to the Lord's prayer given in Matthew:

  14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins. - Matthew 6:14-15 NIV

Compare also The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant.

Viewed in human terms, the 'manner' of our forgiveness will not of course match the Lord's in view of His sublime perfection; however, God is fully committed to supply the required grace to enable us to forgive completely and sincerely if we trust him to do so:

  His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. - 2 Peter 1:3 NIV


According to reformed theology, why are certain important doctrines not "obvious"? [i.e. why does the Westminister Confession even exist?] Consider the important doctrines of:

divinity of Christ
doctrine of Trinity
doctrine of predestination

Consider in general, that the Westminister Confession is shorter than most books of the Bible.

Question

Why were these doctrines not explicitly stated in the Bible? The Westminister Confession ... is a document that reformed theology embraces, but other parts of "Christianity" may reject.

Yet, if these books were explicitly stated in the Bible, they'd be canon.

Thus, according to reformed theologians, why was the Westminister Confession something that had to be discovered via "human reasoning" rather than explicitly stated in the Bible?

While this is easy enough to answer from a Reformed point of view, I'd like to start by pointing out that the felt need for extra-Biblical statements on matters of faith is not limited to Reformed circles or even Protestantism. In fact they are common to all traditions and sects in Christendom.1 Even your most run-of-the-mill non-denominational half-baked-evangelical Church in Podunk middle-America will have a Statement of Faith somewhere on their Bulletin, website or other literature. These statements serve both a declarative role in announcing what they believe are the key points to the Christian faith and a discerning role in separating them from any group or church that would make a contrary statement.

At the core is the issue of language. Words by themselves are of little consequence until they are interpreted. Lets try an example. Let's say I were to make a simple statement as follows:

  I do not deserve to be mistreated by the world! -- Caleb Maclennan

You read that and now you think you know what I meant.

Maybe you nod your head in approval—or maybe you wonder what happened to me that I consider myself so mistreated. Maybe it moves you and you start an activist group. You use my statement as a slogan and you gather a bunch of followers. They all are motivated to end the wrongs done by humanity to itself. The only problem is, you completely misunderstood what I said. Now my name is on a whole bunch of things I do not actually approve of.

My statement requires interpretation. Even when you think you are "just reading it at face value", you are actually interpreting it based on whatever background knowledge you have of the world and myself and of language. You also bring your presuppositions about what is right and wrong, what human rights are, etc.

You see, if you really knew my perspective on those factors, a different meaning will show up in the same words. I believe that I am a wretched sinner who does not deserve the grace I have been shown in Christ to whom I owe all of my allegiance. As the author and perfecter of my faith was abused and mistreated by this world having done no wrong to deserve it, I having done great wrong feel unworthy of the lesser mistreatment that I receive. Behind my statement lies an understanding that even the world's mistreatment is better than I deserve.

The need for Creeds and Confessions stems from this issue of all language requiring interpretation. Over time as contexts change and we lose perspective on the original authors, sometimes it becomes necessary to clarify to ourselves in what way we are interpreting the teachings of Scripture.

In reading the Scriptures we each bring different light to bear on them. It is only by comparing our understanding with each others' that we come to realize places where we may have erred, and it is partly by seeing the different outcomes that we come to understand how different presuppositions affect our understanding. Creeds and Confessions help bring interpretation full circle, demonstrating to others how we have interpreted the Scriptures and affirming our beliefs. They are a way of echoing back what we have gleaned from the Bible with the Spirit's help, allowing others to verify our interpretations and hold us accountable to them.

They also serve as a measuring stick for other believers. As a minister of the word ordained by a Reformed denomination, part of the ordination process I went through was an examination of my own beliefs in comparison to a number of Creeds and Confessions, including the Westminster Confession of Faith. I will use the WCF as an example because you mention it, but the principles I'm talking about here and the necessity of such confessions is universal and just as relevant for those who hold a confession that conflicts with the WCF.

I actually took exception to a number of points in the WCF. I do not hold it to be an infallible guide or standard of interpretation nor a dictate on my life. However it is incredibly valuable to able to compare my own interpretation of Scripture (particularly in a case like mine where I go on to teach and preach based on said interpretations) against a third party articulation of the Christian faith. Many people use their Bibles to preach sermons, but just because they used a verse or two doesn't mean they are preaching orthodoxy. In fact many of them babble nonsense and even heresy. Having agreed upon fixed standards of interpretation for certain key issues allows other churches, my own congregation and myself to judge my own beliefs and determine if I have wandered from sound teaching. I do not agree with everything in the WCF, but I have made my exceptions known and that gives people a measure with which to evaluate me and keep my teaching accountable.

Confessions are not divinely appointed standards, but they are a mutual aide for us as fallible individuals that we are correctly interpreting God's word.

The necessity for these started very early in Christian history. It actually can be traced back before the NT church into creedal statements made that existed as markers between Israel and other nations and in between different sects of Jews. Some of these were as simple as a fragment of a verse from the OT, some as complicated as a law dictionary.

But let's pick up some traces from the NT. Please note there are huge gaps between each of these steps, I'm not noting some mile markers along the road here.

  1 John 4:2 (ESV)
  2  By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

The early church had trouble with this one right away. How were they to tell who was a follower of Christ? Among the very early church (the first handful of generations after the original disciples) articulating their faith in a way that distinguished them as uniquely Christian is what we know as a Rule of Faith. Wikipedia has the following to note on the subject. Understand that Irenaeus was writing about 120 A.D. and recording what was already a widely circulated Confession of the time.

  In Christian theology, it is a principle which evaluates religious life and theological opinions by testing them for consistency against what has been firmly believed. The original rule of faith in the Early Christian Church as Irenaeus knew it, included the following:

    … this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all the things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise anew all flesh of the whole human race … :

Gradually, these Creeds grew in length. And for good reason. Beset with heresies as each new group and idea came along with some new and unique way to reinterpret Scripture differently than was understood by the early churches under the guidance of the Apostles, it was necessary to add statements on these issues clarifying what was orthodox belief and what was deviant. While sticking to the core details, these expressed in detail the specific things understood about the faith and the teachings of Scripture in a way that set Christians apart from people whose doctrinal systems had other allegiances.

For example the Apostles' Creed, known to have been coined by at least 215 A.D but has several variations, of which we typically use a little later more developed one, goes something like this:

  I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

  I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.

  I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. AMEN.

That covers a lot of little details about the person of Jesus, but groups still arose that claimed various teachings that subverted what Christians understood the teaching about Christ to be. The bit I bolded above from 215 A.D looks more like this in the Nicene Creed from 381 A.D.

  [...] And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; [...]

One could go on and on, tracing the development of longer or more specific Creeds and Confessions in response to heresies and misunderstandings. As the number of ways man invents to deviate from the teachings of the word grows so will the need to state clearly what the orthodox teaching on those issues is. However, I digress from your question.

Specific points of doctrine such as those you give as examples do not originate with the Confessions that most clearly express them, rather they originate with the Scriptures and are the articulations of orthodox interpretation which the church in various ages felt the need to articulate when faced with influxes of teachings that did not match its own yet claimed to be Christian.

One must be clear on this: Creeds and Confessions do not hold authority over Scripture nor is it the confessions themselves that we teach, but rather our interpretation of God's word using the wisdom of the church that has gone before us as a measure or guide to make sure we have correctly understood it. The WCF itself clearly states this in Article 31.42:

  All synods or councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.

Many other written confessions include a similar note about themselves.

I do mean all. Even sects such as the Bereans who insist on having no creed but the Bible, have as a commonly agreed upon statement that in order to make any doctrinal point, only the text of Scripture can be used. In effect this is their confession. Their collective interpretations also tend to have some unique flair to them do end up documented as statements of faith that set them apart from non-Bereans.
This is not one of the points to which I take exception. ;o)


Can we trust the Septuagint? I've previously used the Apostolic Bible for digging deeper into the meanings of passages.  However, I've found that some passages in the Old Testament make no sense compared to the modern translations.

I figured out that the problem was that the Apostolic Bible was using the Septuagint ("LXX") version for the Old Testament.  (The Septuagint, for those who don't know, is an ancient translation from the original Hebrew into Greek.)

Once I realized this, I stopped using the Apostolic Bible out of fear that it would lead me down the wrong path.  Now I'm curious how valid is this fear?

So, the question is:  Can we trust the Septuagint as a valid translation of the original Hebrew?

Alternatively, what can we learn by using the Septuagint compared to going straight to the current Hebrew editions of the Old Testament (such as the Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible)?

The Masoretic (Hebrew) text is closer to the Bible Jesus used, but Septuagint (LXX) was the one used by the New Testament writers.

In most of the Old Testament, the differences are not very significant. However, in a few places the Masoretic and LXX have sharp differences. For example:

  Isaiah 7:14 NRSV from Masoretic Text: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

Many modern Bible translations prefer the LXX in passages that are quoted in the New Testament:

  Isaiah 7:14 ESV from Septuagint: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

When this verse is quoted in the gospel of Matthew, it is clearly the Septuagint version:

  Matthew 1:23 NRSV "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means, "God is with us."

For that reason alone, I'd be reluctant to dismiss the Septuagint entirely. The ideal (short of learning Hebrew and Greek) would be a translation with lots of footnotes to indicate where the Hebrew and the LXX disagree, and explanations of why the translators prefer one or the other. Failing that, it's beneficial to have several translations available to see how different translators handled these passages.


Is keeping kosher impermissible? Although most Christian denominations do not require keeping kosher, are there any that prohibit keeping kosher? I'm most interested in Reformed, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox views, but also others (to a lesser extent).

The Catholic Church does not forbid her faithful to follow any kind of dietary restrictions; the only restrictions she places on faithful are the fasting requirements during Lent — which, recently, are only obligatory in Ash Wednesday and Good Friday — and the abstinence of meat on Wednesdays and Fridays, or as directed by the country's Conference of Bishops. The details are in the Code of Canon Law, Canons 1250–1253.

The Orthodox Church also prescribes fasting on Great Lent, which is a period similar to Catholic Lent but starting from Clean Monday, which is the Monday before Ash Wednesday when Easter happens to coincide between East and West, and is similarly displaced relative to Ash Wednesday as much as Julian and Gregorian Easter Sundays are displaced when they don't coincide. In this period, Orthodox follow an essentially vegan diet, and are forbidden from wine and olive oil in a few of those days, in addition. Finally, Eastern Orthodox monks and nuns are on this Great Lenten diet permanently, as soon as they join the monastery.

Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo follow Jewish custom for ethnic reasons: they maintain they have Jewish ancestry from the time of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba.

Finally, Reformed generally don't fast even in Lent, or if they do, they do so individually according to each person's conscience. The Heidelberg Catechism, for instance, makes no mention at all of fasting, diet or food (except for a section on the Lord's Supper).


How did Old Testament saints show they were focused on God’s promises even though they did not know when or how their Redeemer/Messiah would appear? I am preparing a message on the importance of eliminating distractions and making Christ and His crucifixion our focal point.  These New Testament Scriptures illustrate the point:

For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2).

As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made.  She came to him and asked, ‘Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!’  ‘Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, ‘you are upset about many things, but only one thing is needed.  Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her’ (Luke 10:38-42).

When I preach and teach, I like to use the Old Testament Scriptures to illustrate New Testament truths.
I am looking for Old Testament examples of men and women of faith who single-mindedly focused on God and His promises and who eliminated all worldly distractions in their desire to please God.

I would start with Deuteronomy 6:4-9 as the ground upon which to build your thesis

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

What God has said is to be held front and center of all living, doing, thinking, and speaking.  Following this there are many exhortations to neither turn from the commands of God to the left or to the right such as Deut. 5:32, Joshua 1:7, and Proverbs 4:25-27.
As the saints of old were commanded to place the Word of God as their focal point and compass so now we current saints are to fixate upon the Word made flesh and lifted up.  We are to fix our eyes upon Jesus, cast down imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself against the experiential knowledge of God, and take it all captive to obey Christ.  Moses commanded much the same:  Look to God, tear down the high places of man-made worship, obey.
I think Joshua's commission by Moses and the subsequent conquest of the promised land are fertile ground for many examples that are typical of our current experience, both good and bad.  Spend some time in prayer in Joshua.  Peace.