What Scriptures tell us what man having free will actually means? I have been given many different opinions as to what having free will actually means. Some have said that it means only that we have a choice of whether or not to accept salvation, others have said it is the choice of whether to choose good or evil. Others tell me it is both. It seems that there are as many opinions as there are people.
So I tried to find out if there were some Scriptures which would answer that question, but so far there has not been any answer given me by the Holy Spirit.
So I have decided to ask if you can point me to some Scriptures which will clear this up.
All Scriptures quoted are from the King James translation.
These are the Scriptures I have already considered, and what I have discerned from them so far.

Genesis 1:29  And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

At this point God has not put any restrictions on what to eat, and so no free will is indicated.

Genesis 2:16  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Genesis 2:17  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

At this point; and I am unsure if this is the same as verse 1:29 or not; God has placed a restriction on what to eat and therefore man has a choice, however he does not at this juncture have the knowledge of good and evil.
That sort of leads me to dismiss the parts about choosing salvation, and whether or not to choose good or evil.
My consternation comes from the fact that if man did not have free will at this time, why would God place the restriction in the first place?
Then I considered that free will was just another way of saying that man had the ability make  choices. Choosing entails reasoning, and reasoning entails having knowledge. And not only does it require knowledge, but it requires that we have knowledge of more than one option.
So prior to verse 2:17 even though man may have possessed the ability to choose he did not have an option based on the fact that he had no knowledge that there were repercussions for eating from that one tree.
So; erroneously or not; I have concluded that free will is actually a process in which man is alternately infused with options and knowledge of consequences.
To this end I have come to believe that up until Jesus died on the cross and rose again from the dead, that man never had free will as far as salvation is concerned, and even now until all people are given the Gospel they do not have free will as far as salvation is concerned, and may be the reason God has not sent Jesus for the second coming, since Jesus said:

Matthew 24:14  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.

Are there any Scriptures which I have overlooked that would alter my conclusions.

tl;dnr

The scriptures tell us we do not have free will. We cannot choose Christ unless God supernaturally causes us to desire him and so causes us to choose him. Further, we cannot make even the smallest day to day decisions differently from the way we do make them, right down the to the words I'm typing. "The lot is cast into the lap but its every decision is from the LORD." (Pv 16:33)

Some thoughts:

All men make choices based on their desires (or preferences). No man has authority over his desires. Therefore no man has authority over his choices.

No man is an island. No event happens in a vacuum. All things are connected. If God is sovereign over any outcome he must be sovereign over every outcome.

All text is from the ESV unless otherwise noted.

In the New Testament

Mark

Mk 13:20-27

20 And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.
21 And then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it.
22 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
23 But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand.
24 "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,
25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
27 And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

John

Jn 1:9-13

The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Jn 6:35-44 NIV

Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day."
41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven."
42 They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?"
43 "Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered.
44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.

The Father gives the Son all those whom he saves. They all come and none are lost. None that are not given come.

Jn 6:63-65 NIV

"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.
65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."

Jn 12:37-40

37 Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, 38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled

Lord, who has believed what he heard from us,
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,

40 He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes,
and understand with their heart, and turn,
and I would heal them.

How can they turn to God of their own free will if they cannot believe? If their eyes are blind, how will they see? If their hearts are hard, how will they desire Him?

Jn 15:16-19

"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.
17 These things I command you, so that you will love one another.
18 If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.
19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."

Jn 17:1-12

When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you,
2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.
3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do.
5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
6 "I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word.
7 Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you.
8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.
9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. 10 All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them.
11 And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.
12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

What can be said about this? Jesus says the Father has given him authority to give eternal life to those that the Father gave him out of the world.
They belonged to the Father, the Father gave them to the Son, the Son gave them eternal life and not one was lost except the son of destruction as prophesied in Scripture.
Where then is free will? Where is their power to turn to or from God of themselves? Perhaps it will be said that Jesus is here referring only to the apostles.
Will we then say that the apostles did not have free will but everyone else does?

Acts

Ac 2:22-23 NASB

Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—
23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.

Ac 4:23-28

When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them.
24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, "Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them,
25 who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit,

"'Why did the Gentiles rage,
and the peoples plot in vain?
26 The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers were gathered together,
against the Lord and against his Anointed'—

27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,
28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

Ac 13:48

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

None believed that were not appointed. All that were appointed believed. Where is free will?

Romans

Rm 8:5-8

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

If we, born in the flesh, are hostile to God, cannot submit to God's law and cannot please God, how then can we welcome God, submit to Him and please Him by turning to Him of our own power?

Rm 8:28-30

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Rm 9:10-24

And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,
11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—
12 she was told, "The older will serve the younger."
13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—
24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Rm 10:14-21

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!"
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?"
17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for
Their voice has gone out to all the earth,
and their words to the ends of the world.
19 But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says,
I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation;
with a foolish nation I will make you angry.
20 Then Isaiah is so bold as to say,
I have been found by those who did not seek me;
I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.
21 But of Israel he says, All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.

So to call on God they must believe and to believe they must have faith and to have faith they must hear.
But not all who hear understand. "Hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand."1
Those to whom he has shown himself did not ask for him and were not seeking him. "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God." 2

Matthew 13:13
Romans 3:11

Rm 11:1-8

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?
3 "Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life."
4 But what is God's reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal."
5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.
6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,
8 as it is written,

God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that would not see
and ears that would not hear,
down to this very day.

If the gift is given to those who choose it for themselves then it isn't by grace at all but rather by the merit of the choice. If the gift is given to those who do not choose it then it is by grace that it is given.

Rm 11:17-32

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree,
18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you.
19 Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."
20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear.
21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.
22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.
23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.
24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.
25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob;
27 and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.

28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.
29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

What branch choses to be grafted in or cut out? The cultivator makes those decisions.

Rm 12:3

For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.

Faith is required to believe and God assigns it.

Galatians

Gal 1:13-17

For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it.
14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace,
16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone;
17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

Paul, so far from seeking God, was bent on destroying God's ekklesia. He did not seek Him or ask for Him yet He came to him because He purposed before he was born to use him for His glory.

Ephesians

Eph 2:8-10

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Philippians

Php 2:12-13

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,
13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

In the Old Testament

Proverbs

Pv 16:1

The plans of the heart belong to man,
  but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord.

Pv 16:4

The Lord has made everything for its purpose,
  even the wicked for the day of trouble.

Pv 16:9 NKJV

A man’s heart plans his way,
  But the Lord directs his steps.

Pv 16:33

The lot is cast into the lap,
  but its every decision is from the Lord.

Pv 22:2

The rich and the poor have this in common,
  The Lord is the maker of them all.

Psalm

Ps 31:14-15

But I trust in you, O Lord;
    I say, “You are my God.”
15 My times are in your hand;

Ps 37:23-24

The steps of a man are established by the Lord,
  when he delights in his way;
24 though he fall, he shall not be cast headlong,
  for the Lord upholds his hand.

Possible Rebuttals

Jn 5:39-40

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

The KJV translation reads "40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."
When it says "ye will" or "ye will not" it is taken to imply that ye just as easily may have willed differently had ye so chosen.
But isn't that begging the question? When it says "you will not come" it does not follow that this means you might have come had you so chosen. Rather, this is merely stating what your will is.
Your will is to not come.
Spurgeon had this to say about it:

…no man by nature ever will come to Christ, for the text says, "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."
So far from asserting that men of their own wills ever do such a thing, it boldly and flatly denies it, and says, "Ye WILL NOT come to me, that ye might have life."
Free Will–A Slave, REV C.H. Spurgeon

Rm 10:8-9

But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

This is the best example that I know of to illustrate this issue. Here Paul says if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart you will be saved. It goes on to say, in verse 13,
"13 For 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'"
Here again, the assertion that this implies free will is begging the question. This in no way indicates that a person has the freedom to will or to not will confessing and believing.
It simply says that those whose will it is to confess and believe will be saved regardless of how it came to be their will. The reason why this is such a good example is because of the larger context in which it's found.
If we simply go on to read the rest of the chapter we see that Paul is clearly saying that believing and confessing is not something men can do.

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?
17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for
Their voice has gone out to all the earth,
  and their words to the ends of the world.
19 But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says,
I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation;
  with a foolish nation I will make you angry.
20 Then Isaiah is so bold as to say,
I have been found by those who did not seek me;
  I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.
21 But of Israel he says, All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.

Notice is says in verse 17 that hearing comes through the word of Christ. So it is an action of God that enables one to hear. Without this action, without the word of Christ, no one hears and understands.
Hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand."1
None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. 2

Matthew 13:13
Romans 3:11

Further Examples

I think every verse taken to imply free will involves a similar misunderstanding. The following are examples of such verses.

Is 41:18
Oh that you had paid attention to my commandments!
Then your peace would have been like a river,
and your righteousness like the waves of the sea;
Jn 7:17
If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.
Rev 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.
Dt 30:19-20
I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live,
20 loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days,
that you may dwell in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.


How do Trinitarians reconcile Jesus is a spirit? From my understanding of the Trinity (please correct me if I am wrong), the Trinity is God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost as three separate beings (or personalities) but one God. They also are a spirit so they can be everywhere and are not confined to one place. Working with my understanding, I will proceed with my question.

In the New Testament we have a record of the physical birth of Christ, His ministry, and His death. We also read concerning His resurrection, or the rejoining of His spirit and body.

If Jesus Christ is a spirit in the Trinity, how do the Trinitarians reconcile this if the New Testament records His appearance with a physical body after the Resurrection?

-- Please correct my understanding of the Trinity if it is incorrect.

Trinitarians believe that Jesus being human does not contradict his status as God (or as the Spirit).
Even though Jesus is God, he made himself into physical human being, and through this he was able to experience life fully as a man.

Philippians 2:5-8 KJV Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
John 1:14-15 ESV And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”)

Yet at the same time, Jesus was fully God.

Hebrews 2:9-10 ESV But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.


Did the early church condemn the teaching that God the Father is a person with a body living in space somewhere? I have spent my life under the impression that the belief that God the Father is a humanoid being possessing a body and living somewhere in the universe in a manner similar to ourselves is a named heresy condemned by the early church. Is that true? If so, what is the name of the heresy? I have met several Protestants recently who believe this but my googling hasn't yielded anything.

Wikipedia's list of Christian heresies turns up Audianism.  This fourth-century group understood Genesis 1:27 to teach that God has a body like men.

This is a form of anthropomorphism, which is more broadly defined by the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia as:

  Anthropomorphism is the ascription to the Supreme Being of the form, organs, operations, and general characteristics of human nature.


Torah and the Old Testament Both Torah and the Old Testament relate to Jews. How different or similar is Torah and the Old Testament of Bible?

I've found "Judaism 101" at jewfaq.org to be a reasonably sound site when looking for answers to questions about Judaism. Here's their basic definition of Torah:

  The word "Torah" is a tricky one, because it can mean different things in different
      contexts. In its most limited sense, "Torah" refers to the Five Books of Moses: Genesis,
      Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. But the word "torah" can also be used to
      refer to the entire Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the Old
      Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written Torah), or in its broadest sense, to the
      whole body of Jewish law and teachings.

In everyday usage, speakers commonly use the word "Torah" as a synonym for what Christians sometimes call the Book of Moses.

Worth noting is the fact that the Torah is one of many central texts used in Judaism -- the Talmud, Mishnah, and other texts are also significantly important. Book one of Edersheim's The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah explores the topic in significant depth.


Why do Matthew and Luke contain genealogies of Jesus, while Mark and John do not? Both Matthew and Luke contain genealogies of Jesus, Matthew to Abraham, and Luke to Adam.  However, neither Mark nor John contain genealogies.  What is the reason for this--both for why Matthew and Luke do contain genealogies, and for why Mark and John do not?

I don't think we can ever know for sure as we can't ask them. However I think the answer is probably to do with who they are writing to and what is the purpose of their writing.

Matthew is probably writing to a Jewish audience. For them the Christ has to have come from Abraham & David and so Matthew spends the time to show that Jesus has the credentials to be the Christ.

Luke has probably been employed to write the book by Theophilus (debated if that is the persons name or title). He has been tasked to report on what has happened and what it means - thus it goes into a lot of detail.

Mark seems to be focused on just reporting the facts as they happened. He doesn't need to present the background information on what it means, just runs through the events.

John is in a completely different format than the other gospels. In terms of who Jesus is he is very much focused on Jesus' divinity - not his human family.


How is it that Georgian Orthodox Church are in full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church when they have a different biblical canon? There is a table on this wikipedia page which indicates that the Georgian Orthodox Church accepts 2 Esdras 3–14 (4 Ezra) and 4 Maccabees as part of their biblical canon, whereas the rest of the Eastern Orthodox Church do not.

In that case how is it possible that the Georgian Orthodox Church is considered in full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church? Isn't there a standard "canon of scripture" dogma which all Eastern Orthodox Churches are bound to accept?

Possible explanations:

The Georgian Orthodox Church is not actually in full communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church, the wikipedia page is inaccurate.
Those books are considered canon in the "permitted to be read during the liturgy" sense, but not in the "Inspired by God"/"God speaks through these books" sense. (Even so this wouldn't really solve the discrepancy noted in my question)
The Eastern Orthodox canon of scripture is not a dogma, but merely a disciplinary canon which is still technically open for debate. The fact that the majority of the Eastern Orthodox Churches have the same canon is just a happy coincidence, but not a requirement of the faith. (It seems like this is the case in the Oriental Orthodox Church, where each of the member churches seems to have a wildly different canon. cf The Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church's canon)

The 85th Apostolic Canon, ratified at the Quinisext Council in Trullo in 692, enumerated the list of Old Testament books:

  Let the following books be counted venerable and sacred by all of you,
  both clergy and Laity.  Of the Old Testament, five books of Moses,
  Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; of Joshua the Son of
  Nun, one; of the Judges, one; of Ruth, one; of the Kings, four; of the
  Chronicles of the book of the days, two; of Ezra, two; of Esther, one;
  [some texts read “of Judith, one”;] of the Maccabees, three; of Job,
  one; of the Psalter, one; of Solomon, three, viz.:  Proverbs,
  Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; of the Prophets, twelve; of
  Isaiah, one; of Jeremiah, one; of Ezekiel, one; of Daniel, one.  But
  besides these you are recommended to teach your young persons the
  Wisdom of the very learned Sirach.

This Canon was adopted for the entire Church at the Seventh Ecumenical Council in Nicea in 787.

There is nothing in the Canon that prevents additional books from being included in the same binding, anymore that the Canon prohibits commentary or apparatus such as might appear in a study Bible.

An earlier local council, the Council of Carthage in 397, enumerated a similar list of books with the instruction that those listed were the only ones appointed to be read in the Church.  The Church of Georgia follows the same Church Lectionary as the rest of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which does not include any of the books you indicate.


What is the Biblical basis for divine simplicity? Wikipedia defines divine simplicity this way:

  In theology, the doctrine of divine simplicity says that God is
  without parts.

Euthyphro, God's Nature, and the Question of Divine Attributes, which discuss Divine Simplicity and the philosophies used to describe how God is "simple," provides a better definition in part 1:

  When we speak of God’s simplicity then, in the most elementary sense,
  we are speaking of his not having parts, of his non-compositeness. “We
  use the term,” Berkhof explains, “to describe the state or quality of
  being simple, the condition of being free from division into parts,
  and therefore from compositeness”

Here's part 2 and part 3.

Personally, I think divine simplicity is coherent. But I couldn't find any scriptural support for this doctrine. What is the Biblical basis?

There is no single verse declaring, "God is simple." But those who believe the doctrine believe that it is the only way to coherently hold onto all of the Bible's declarations about God. Catholicism and all the major Protestant confessions declare divine simplicity.
The blog post "Is divine simplicity scriptural?" says:

Simplicity is implicit in Scripture in that it follows from a strong doctrine of aseity and God's providence, which is found stated in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16. These passages say that all things were created by God. So it is true that whatever is non-identical to God is created by God. But if God had parts he would have to create his parts, and in so doing create himself, which can’t be true since God is uncreated and uncaused. Hence, God doesn’t have any parts and is simple.

James Dolezal, author of God without Parts, similarly says:

[God] gives to all, but receives from none (Acts 17:25-25; Rom. 11:35-36).

Herman Bavinck writes in Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2 (page 176):

If God is composed of parts, like a body, or composed of genus (class) and differentiae (attributes of different species belonging to the same genus), substance and accidents, matter and form, potentiality and actuality, essence and existence, then his perfection, oneness, independence, and immutability cannot be maintained.

Kevin DeYoung paraphrases Bavinck's point this way:

In other words, the simplicity of God not only prevents us from ranking certain attributes higher than others, it allows God to have "a distinct and infinite life of his own within himself" (Bavinck 177). He is not an abstract Absolute Idea who happens to have love, wisdom, and holiness, as if we first conceive of a being called God and then relate qualities to him. Rather, God in his very essence—within himself and by himself—is love, wisdom, and holiness. God is whatever he has. He is not the composite of his attributes, some in greater and some in lesser amounts. God is a simple being without parts or pieces. His attributes do not stick to him; he is what they are.

Therefore, the doctrine is built on the doctrines of God's aseity, providence, perfection, oneness, independence, immutability, self-sufficiency, and identity as creator. Each of these doctrines has a strong Biblical basis. From that list, oneness and immutability are the attributes most closely related to simplicity. Here are some of the verses that most strongly support the immutability and oneness of God:

Malachi 3:6 I the LORD do not change.
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
Numbers 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.
1 Samuel 15:29 The Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.
Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I am has sent me to you.'"
Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
All scriptural citations are from the ESV.


What is the basis for ascribing any fiscal policy to Jesus? In the United States, specifically on the Right, many Republican / Tea-Party, Evangelical Christians have very little problem in ascribing a moral motive for a tight fiscal policy which restricts "wealth redistribution."   On the left, evangelicals such as Jim Wallis (Sojourners), have promoted the opposite ("What would Jesus Cut?").

While I understand the kernels of the arguments on either side (on the Right, it is unfair to redistribute wealth; on the Left, there is an extension of the "Blessed are the Poor" theology), I'd like to understand how it is that any fiscal policy is supposed to have the imprimatur of a "Biblical" theology.

Specifically, does anyone have a reference for the first religious argument on whether the United States government's budget should be larger or smaller?  Is this a product of the "Culture Wars" of the 80s, or does religious justification for fiscal policy predate this?

In other words, who is responsible for injecting Jesus into discussions of taxation and other fiscal matters? And, once we've established who conflated the two, what was the biblical rationale for doing so?

Since Peter answered your first question, I'll attempt to answer your second question.

And, once we've established who conflated the two, what was the biblical rationale for doing so?

Jesus spoke of doing good to others.

Matthew 25:35-40 - ...for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.”

All Bible quotes in this post come from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible.
Paul spoke of doing good to others.

Hebrews 13:16 - Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.
Philippians 2:4 - Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others.

There's no question that Jesus and Paul wanted us to help others.
The contemporary question is whether Jesus and Paul wanted individuals and groups (churches) to help others, or have the government help others.  Generally, United States conservatives favor individual assistance, while United States liberals favor government assistance.
The scripture is not clear on this question.  What we do have is Jesus' words:

Matthew 22:17-21 - Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?’ But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, ‘Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin used for the tax.’ And they brought him a denarius. Then he said to them, ‘Whose head is this, and whose title?’ They answered, ‘The emperor’s.’ Then he said to them, ‘Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’

This scripture has been interpreted to support both individual assistance and government assistance.  Unfortunately, there is no clear cut answer from the Bible.
And that's why the individual assistance and government assistance debate continues and will continue.


What is the meaning of "overshadowed" by the power of the most High in Luke 1:35? We read in Luke 1:35 that "the power of the most High will overshadow" Mary. Some interpret this as the Holy Spirit will overshadow the Virgin Mary.

The greeting of the angel already reveals the state of soul of the Virgin Mary, that  it was 'full of grace'.

A Few Questions:

If a person is 'overshadowed' would that mean all her actions are inspired and are to be considered the works of the Holy Spirit?—or what is the significance of word "overshadowed" and its meaning in the life of the chosen Mother of our Messiah?
Is there any other Biblical character or event where the word 'overshadow'
is used in the Bible?
Does this overshadowing apply only to the soul, or to both the body and the soul?
Are inspiration and overshadowing the same action of the Holy Spirit in the person?

The Power of the Most High as the Holy Spirit

I think anyone accustomed to the Hebraic parallelisms of the Bible will recognize in Luke 1:35 an appositive parallelism whereby the Power of the Most High spoken of is made identical to the Holy Spirit:

  Luke 1:35 And answering the angel said to her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: on account of which also the Holy One to be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Note here that at once we learn the reason Christ is to be recognized as not a mere man, or 'mere' son of Mary, but who He is in truth: the Son of God (cf. Jn 1:1, 14—Lk 1:43). Gabriel is saying 'on account of this conception,a nd by the power of God and not by the involvement of man, you will concieve' (the thrust of Mt 1:25)—in answer, mind you, to Mary's inquisitive and mild objection, "How is this to be [accomplished], seeing as I know not man?"—a euphamism for 'do not have sexual relations' and so 'wonder how I am to concieve.' It was her will to remain a virgin, (cf. 1 Cor 7:34,37) as is in keeping with the "mother of the Lord," and "the Holy One;" "God among us" (Mt 1:23) and "the Lord of Glory," (1 Cor 2:8), even "the First and the Last" (Rev 1:17-18)! cf. Ezek 43:1-2; 44:1-2.

So the the overshadowing being the answer to the question 'by what means shall my concieving a son be, if not by intercourse?' shows us the function and purpose of her being overshadowed: to work the miracle of the Incarnation (Mt 1:18). No matter the referent of the overshadowing (her soul or her body) it is necessary that she be prepared in both to contain the Word of God (Wis 1:4).

Mary's 'Fullness of Grace'

The traditional rendering of the Greek word κεχαριτομένη (her-having-been-graced) as 'full of grace' is certainly a valid one (especially since it stands as a vocative 'title,' and in place of her name), and in any case bears witness to the Chirstian people's belief concerning its significance. It probably best renders the sense of the word, which denotes a completedness to God's 'gracing' her (much like how 'burned' denotes the completedness nature of the act of burning, and now 'having been burned' characterizes the thing which was burned.)

Significantly, the only other time this verb χαριτόω (to grace/show grace) is used in the New Testament is in speaking of the action by which God "[redeemed]" Christians, and made them "holy and blameless" before Him: 1

  Ephesians 1:3-7 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in heaven by Christ: just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, to [make] us holy and blameless before him, forordaining us in love unto the adoption as sons, (through Christ) unto himself: according as it shall have pleased him; [all] unto the praise of his glorious grace, with which he graced us [ἐχαρίτωσεν] in the Beloved, [and] by which we have redemption, through his blood—the forgiveness of sins—according to the plenitude of his grace.

We might say that at the very least, Mary was sanctified even from her mother's womb, or "from the first instance of her conception" (Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus) in the same or in a greater way than was John the Baptist from his mother's womb (Lk 1:15): him a herald of the Lord, whereas she is His mother and the one who clothed the Him with His very flesh (Lk 1:43; Jn 1:1,14; Gal 4:4). As the Ark was made according to specific measurements and to be covered with pure gold and carried reverently on poles gilded with gold, so we expect Mary to have been chosen and prepared in a much greater way: who didn't contain mere symbols of Christ (manna which fell from heaven in the desert, the rod of Aaron, the tablets of stone with the Debarim or Words of God inscribed on them: Heb 9:4) but Christ Himself (the living Bread, born in the city called House-of-Bread, which comes from heaven Jn 6:48-51, the true high priest Heb 4:14, and the Word of God in the flesh Jn 1:14).

It's noteworthy that Mary, the Mother of God, is nowhere said to herself have been graced or filled with the Holy Spirit in preparation for her unparalleled role of honor, except being described as 'already' "having been graced;" if anything, she could be seen as carrying the Holy Spirit with her due to whom she was carrying in her womb, meaning the 'overshadowing' was during the whole time "the Word...tabernacled" (Jn 1:14) in her:

  Luke 1:41-44 And it came to pass that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And why is this given to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.

Inspiration vs. Overshadowing of the Holy Spirit / The Significance and Usage of 'Overshadow' in the Bible

Inspiration of the Holy Spirit is nowhere correlated with being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. ἐπισκιάζω (to overshadow; envelope; [h/c]over over by presence) is a Greek verb used relatively few times in the Bible, and every time (with one exception) it refers to the direct presence of, or being surrounded by, God's glory.2

Interestingly, in concordance with the connections between the Ark of the Covenent and Mary discussed above, and elsewhere, God's glory cloud also filled or 'overshadowed' (Ex 40:35 LXX) the placed where the Ark was kept in the Tabernacle (Ex 40). cf. Rev 11:19-12:1,5.

Foonotes

1 In the Greek Old Testament we have another use in Sir 18:17: "Behold, is not a word better than a gift? Even these both are with a man graced [by God.]" (Vul. justificáto—made just/justified).

2 That I can find: Mt 17:5/Mk 9:7/Lk 9:34 (God speaks from a cloud which 'overshadows' them at the Transfiguration of Jesus); LXX: Ex 40:35; Ps 90:4; Ps 139:8 (God's most intimate presence or protection). Heb 9:5 uses a synonymous verb meaning roughly the same thing, describing the cherbubim of glory 'positioned as they were above' (κατασκιάζοντα) the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant. In Prov 18:11: "to the rich man, his wealth is the city of [his] strength, the great glory of which surrounds him."


Guidelines for "becoming" a believer, according to the Catholic Church This might sound like an odd question, but I hope it's on-topic.

Say an atheist/agnostic approaches you and asks, "how can I get to believe in God?". Out of instinct/experience, you can say things like "pray, read, talk to a priest, go to a church, etc".

I wonder if there is some sort of "official guide" in the Catholic Church directed to non believers, so they can get to know God. I'm thinking in terms of  encyclicals, exhortations, pastoral documents, or even something based on doctrine. Any ideas?

St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa contra Gentiles ("Summary treatise against [the errors of] the pagans") was written precisely to convert those who do not accept the authority of the Christian Holy Scriptures. From bk. 1 ch. 2 ("The Author's Intention in the Present Work") [3]:

  …the Mohammedans and the pagans, do not agree with us in accepting the authority of any Scripture, by which they may be convinced of their error. Thus, against the Jews we are able to argue by means of the Old Testament, while against heretics we are able to argue by means of the New Testament. But the Muslims and the pagans accept neither the one nor the other. We must, therefore, have recourse to the natural reason, to which all men are forced to give their assent. However, it is true, in divine matters the natural reason has its failings.

cf. this bibliography for the English translations of the Summa contra Gentiles


What are indulgences and when and why were they used? I seem to recall that indulgences had something to do with Roman Catholics doing something to receive forgiveness of sins prior to committing the sins.

So, is that what indulgences were?  When did these begin and are they still practiced?  If not, when did they end and why?

A good introduction to indulgences can be found here. A more thorough explanation can be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I will try to extract a few basic points.

  To facilitate explanation, it may be well to state what an indulgence is not. It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer's salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject.

In Catholic theology there are two kinds of punishment for sins The first is eternal punishment in which the sinner is separated from God forever. The price of this punishment has been paid for all Christians by Christ. There is however a 'temporal punishment' for sins committed by Christians, as a "repayment of debt" for the sin. This punishment is served in Purgatory for a certain amount of time, after death. Indulgences (which comes from the Latin for a debt repayment) are a way for the person to pay that debt in their earthly life. The punishment of the first kind is a part of almost all Christian theology. The punishment of the second kind is largely specific to Catholicism.

  In the Sacrament of Baptism not only is the guilt of sin remitted, but also all the penalties attached to sin. In the Sacrament of Penance the guilt of sin is removed, and with it the eternal punishment due to mortal sin; but there still remains the temporal punishment required by Divine justice, and this requirement must be fulfilled either in the present life or in the world to come, i.e., in Purgatory. An indulgence offers the penitent sinner the means of discharging this debt during his life on earth.

Most non-Catholics have encountered the concept only as an object against which the Reformers protested. However even then the protest was largely against the sale of indulgences, a matter which the church does and did consider an abuse.

  These measures show plainly that the Church long before the Reformation, not only recognized the existence of abuses, but also used her authority to correct them.
  In spite of all this, disorders continued and furnished the pretext for attacks directed against the doctrine itself, no less than against the practice of indulgences. Here, as in so many other matters, the love of money was the chief root of the evil: indulgences were employed by mercenary ecclesiastics as a means of pecuniary gain.

Indulgences are very old, going back to at least the third century of the church. Indulgences are still granted today, though not in any form that would be familiar from a popular account of the Reformation. They are typically proclaimed for specific religious acts. For example in the Jubilee years 1983 and 2000 indulgences were proclaimed for those visiting certain shrines in Rome and other places.

cf. X. INDULGENCES | Catechism of the Catholic Church.


What does Karl Barth imply by God entrusting us with a "nobile officium"? In Evangelical Theology: An Introduction, chapter 8, Karl Barth writes:

  It is splendid and beautiful to be assigned a duty by the God of the Gospel who is the object of evangelical theology, but it is also demanding, exalting, and finally terrifying. A nobile officium, a noble charge, is confided and entrusted to man; but this charge implies that he is expected to fulfill his ministry. He is privileged to do what is expected of him. But he also must do what he is chosen to do.

I was struck by the Latin phrase "nobile officium", which has a specific meaning in Scotland. For the Church of Scotland, at least historically, it refers to the power of the General Assembly to regulate itself (including to modify its own rules of procedure as necessary) and to act in the interests of justice when the existing law does not provide a remedy. Likewise, in the civil courts, the Court of Session is said to have a nobile officium, described by Andrew MacDouall, Lord Bankton, as follows:

  They are intitled, in some cases, to interpose, otherwise than according to  the ordinary rules or forms of law, and even contrary to the form of ordinary proceedings, when the case requires it, in order to bring out the truth, which could not otherwise be done; or to interpose in points necessary for the public good of the society; or for making justice effectual in private cases, where the ordinary forms cannot reach the end [...] This is a supereminent power, founded in their high jurisdiction. 1

I am not convinced that Barth had this meaning in mind, but I also don't know what he did mean to imply, and I don't know of any other use of the term nobile officium. Elsewhere he refers to theology as a "free science" - free from "any dependence on subordinate presuppositions" - so perhaps there is some connection with the concept of a supreme court being free to act. But I can't quite seem to make this work in my mind.

Can any Barth experts help me out?

1. From An Institute of the Laws of Scotland in Civil Rights, vol. 2 (Edinburgh, 1752), p517. Compare Viscount Stair in The Institutions of the Law of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1693), book 4, title 3; and other institutional writers.

You did well, I believe, in beginning your search for the meaning of nobile officium vis-à-vis the powers of the General Assembly in the Church of Scotland.  You might also take a dip into the strictly legal/civil application of the concept to centuries of Scotch and English Common Law.  See, for example, a condensed version of Black's Law Dictionary at thelawdictionary.org.

Barth, though a "professional" theologian, was at one time a church pastor.  We should not be surprised, then, he would view theology as vital to the task of a pastor.  In his own words:

  "Theology is committed directly to the community and especially to those members who are responsible for preaching, teaching, and counseling. The task theology has to fulfill is continually to stimulate and lead them to face squarely the question of the proper relation of their human speech to the Word of God, which is the origin, object, and content of this speech" (Evangelical Theology:  An Introduction, p. 41).

I would not be surprised, then, if by nobile officium Barth was alluding to what we call the “Great Commission.”  Jesus said in Matthew 28:18-20:

  ”’All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.  Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’”

There could not be a charge more noble than Jesus’ command to “Go therefore and

Make disciples
Baptize disciples,
Teach disciples to obey all Jesus’ commands

Barth himself said, "the hearing, understanding, and application of the biblical message . . . is the fundamental task of all theological study" (id., p. 175).

One difficulty I have with Barth’s theology, however, is his view on what constitutes the “biblical message.”  While Barth sees Scripture as a witness to the Word of God, he does not consider the written Word of God (as canonized and preserved through the centuries) to be the Word of God.  Perhaps out of fear of being labeled a “fundamentalist” and a “literalist” he preferred to elevate the authority of biblical witnesses over the authority of the written record of the witnesses' testimony.

Moreover, according to Barth, “even the smallest, strangest, simplest, or obscurest among the biblical witnesses has an incomparable advantage over even the most pious, scholarly and sagacious latter-day theologian". (id., pp. 31-32).  In other words, Barth would call the Bible a “witness of divine revelation,” and as in all human testimony, whether in a court of law or in the world of fallible people, “A witness is not absolutely identical to that to which it witnesses” (ibid., my emphasis).

A question naturally arises, then:

  If all Christians in general, and Christian pastors in particular, have a divine mandate—or nobile officium—to teach the kerygma (loosely, the content of the gospel) to every creature, how can we know what parts or aspects of the kerygma are the Word of God, and which are not?

From my point of view, and the view of many evangelical Christians and theologians throughout the world, I regard the Bible’s witness, in and of itself, revelatory.  As theologian John Murray said,

  ”Scripture is God's own witness to us, borne through the instrumentality of men but borne by such a unique mode that the witness of men is God's own witness” (Collected Writings of John Murray.  4: Studies in Theology, p.3).

Put differently, God does not speak to us through Scripture so that the Bible becomes the Word of God. No, God reveals himself to us in the witness of the written Word of God. That God was both willing and able to accomplish this revelation without bypassing each biblical writer’s personality, background, education, and culture, and yet still communicate accurately and completely His will and Word for humankind, is a miracle of the first order.  Does one therefore have to be an inerrantist to pass theological muster?  No, but to be an inerrantist is not necessarily the same as being a “wooden literalist.”  But I digress.

A more significant question is, Who determines what the message of the Word of God is?  Theologians?  Pastors?  Average Christians?  Missionaries?  Academics?  Who?  What happens when one preacher, teacher, or exegete of the Word comes to a completely different conclusion from that of another preacher, particularly when the other preacher considers his conclusion to be a non-negotiable tenet of the faith?  Who is to settle the contradiction, and how?  Or is the message sufficiently flexible to accommodate almost any teaching and interpretation so long as it doesn’t go too far afield. Who determines, however, whose view is too far afield and whose is not?  I’m not sure how Barth would answer these questions, though I am sure he would.

In short, Barth’s concept of nobile officium is likely at odds with that of many evangelical theologians and students of the Bible, which of course does not make Barth wrong.  Moreover, he certainly has many worthwhile insights.  If the heart of any “noble charge” emanating from God resembles a plebiscite more than a fiat from on High, however, then theologically and practically we are on shaky ground indeed.  Peter said,

  ”If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God . . .” (1 Peter 4:11 KJV).

As a pastor friend of mine likes to pray before he preaches and teaches:

  "Lord, make my words a true echo of heaven."

When as communicators of the oracles of God we say humbly, yet fervently, “Thus saith the Lord,” we are simply obeying the nobile officium of God Himself, and He alone can take His Word, through the instrumentality of mere vessels of clay, and can cause that Word to echo His truth in convicting power.

When an earthly court, tribunal, or council is faced with the dilemma of having to make a decision in equity but there is no existing law enabling them to do so, they choose to err on the side of fairness, grace, and mercy and not on the letter of the law.  That is nobile officium.

What a privilege is ours as believers in Jesus Christ to bear witness to the truth on behalf of the One who said “I am the truth” (John 14:6).  Moreover, He is the one of whom John said,

  "And we beheld His glory, the glory of the only Begotten Son of God, full of grace and truth" (1:14, my emphasis).

In God's dealings with human beings, His grace always precedes His truth.  The truth of God condemns us, and rightly so; His grace, on the other hand, when received by faith, delivers us from condemnation (John 3:16,17).

Praise God that

  "There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1).


Is there any manuscript or historical evidence to support the final 13 verses of Genesis 50 that appear in the Joseph Smith Translation? The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is unique in its listing of 13 verses at the end of the last chapter of Genesis--chapter 50.  These verses specifically name Moses, who would be born 400 years later.  They also contain a prophecy of a man named Joseph, which is believed by the LDS to be a reference to Joseph Smith, Jr, since his name, "Joseph", is "after the name of his father".

  And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father; and he shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation.  Genesis 50:33 Joseph Smith Translation

What is the manuscript evidence--that is, the evidence of ancient manuscripts in ancient languages (Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc.)-- to support the existence of these verses in the original copies?  Is there any idea how they could have been lost?

To start with, it might be helpful to clarify the terms used here.

Manuscript Evidence

Manuscript Evidence is a term that is well defined outside of Christianity, in the field of Textual Criticism.

  Textual criticism (or lower criticism) is a branch of literary
  criticism that is concerned with the identification and removal of
  transcription errors in the texts of manuscripts. Ancient scribes made
  errors or alterations when copying manuscripts by hand. Given a
  manuscript copy, several or many copies, but not the original
  document, the textual critic seeks to reconstruct the original text
  (the archetype or autograph) as closely as possible. The same
  processes can be used to attempt to reconstruct intermediate editions,
  or recensions, of a document's transcription history. The ultimate
  objective of the textual critic's work is the production of a
  "critical edition" containing a text most closely approximating the
  original.

The basics are covered in another post on this site: What is “Manuscript Evidence” and how is it useful?, and it would be redundant cover the same ground here.  The short version is this:

The more copies we have of a text the more confident we can be that our current translations are true to the original text.
Older copies are less likely to contain unintentional/copyist errors than newer ones, so the more old manuscripts we have, the better.

Historical Evidence

This would be external evidence such as works written by historians of the time, or close to the time, corroborated by accepted historical evidence - documents recording the events at the time, archaeology, etc.

Answer, now that the terms have been clarified:

When it comes to the final verses of genesis, we have *no strong manuscript evidence*.  The evidence we do have is very weak, using the accepted forms of textual criticism.  It is all recent, and all stems from the translation of one author, and a translation of original brass plates that are not available to study.  We can only believe, with no external evidence, that they ever existed at all.  All that we have at this time is the translated verses.  We have no ancient copies of any texts that corroborate these verses.  All we really have is the word of the founder, and other believers within.

When it comes to historical evidence, we also have very little.  Before Joseph Smith, we have no historians referring to these verses, no Church sermons referring to them, nothing.

Of course, to the believer, lack of proof is not proof of lack.  It's impossible to prove the non-existence of something.  The answer to this question could, conceivably, be rendered null and void by the discovery of such manuscript or historical evidence.  The lack of external evidence doesn't constitute proof that the verses are invalid.  it just means that we have no corroborating evidence.  All we have is the word of Joseph Smith and a handful of witnesses, whose trustworthiness is affirmed in the LDS Church, but questioned outside it.


Is praying the rosary, heard when our attention is difficult to maintain? If someone is 90 years of age and believes that they have an Attention Deficit issue, is their prayers heard?

Is my rosary prayer heard when my attention is difficult to maintain?
The short answer is yes!
Distractions during prayer is actually very common. This thing about this subject is not to dwell on the fact that we get distracted or to ”deliberately prolonging our distractions.” Unwanted distractions are neither sinful or freely willed. Once one is aware of a distraction, it is important to simply recall what you are meditating and drop the distraction in question. Do not give the Devil any leeway here.
The Catholic Encyclopedia explains this as following:

Distraction
Distraction (Latin distrahere, to draw away, hence to distract) is here considered in so far as it is wont to happen in time of prayer and in administering the sacraments. It hardly needs to be noted that the idea of mental prayer and mind-wandering are destructive of each other. So far as vocal prayer is concerned, the want of actual interior attention, if voluntary, will take from its perfection and be morally reprehensible. Distractions, however, according to the commonly accepted teaching, do not rob prayer of its essential character. To be sure one must have had the intention to pray and therefore in the beginning some formal advertence; otherwise a man would not know what he was doing, and his prayer could not be described even as a human act. So long, however, as nothing is done outwardly which would be incompatible with any degree whatever of attention to the function of prayer, the lack of explicit mental application does not, so to speak, invalidate prayer. In other words, it keeps its substantial value as prayer, although, of course, when the dissipation of thought is wilful our addresses to the throne of mercy lose a great deal of efficacy and acceptability. This doctrine has an application, for example, in the case of those who are bound to recite the canonical Office and who are esteemed to have fulfilled their obligation substantially even though their distractions have been abundant and absorbing. Voluntary distractions, that is the conscious deliberate surrender of the mind to thoughts foreign to prayers, are sinful because of the obvious irreverence for God with Whom at such times are presuming to hold intercourse. The guilt, however, is judged to be venial. In the administration of the sacraments their validity cannot be assailed merely because the one who confers them fails to, here and now, think of what he is doing. Provided he has the required intention and posits the essentials of the external rite proper to each sacrament, no matter how taken over he may be by outside reflections, his act is distinctly a human one and as such its value cannot be impugned. Such as state of mind, however, when it is wilful, is sinful, but the guilt is not mortal unless one has thereby laid himself open to the danger of making a mistake in what is regarded as essential for the validity of the sacrament in question.


How do Unitarians interpret John 1:1? John 1:1 says:

  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."  -KJV

The Greek says:

  Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

How do Unitarians (those that deny a preexisting Messiah) interpret this verse? If there is more than one, please provide an overview of the various interpretations.

The word (λόγος) of John 1 is not a person but the Gospel of eternal life as the Apostle John says in the opening of his first Epistle: "What (ὅ) was from the beginning (cf. John 1:1), what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have beheld, and our hands have reached out for concerning the word (λόγος) of life (cf. John 1:4). And the life was revealed, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father (cf. John 1:2) and was revealed unto us."
Regarding the word being called "theos," it could also be understood as being qualitative here (i.e. the word was "God-like" or "godly"). The idea is that the word is expressive of God.


Do Catholics object to autopsy? When a Catholic dies and there are questions as to cause of death do they object to a coroners order of an autopsy?
If yes what reasons do they give?

The only Catholic not permitted to be autopsied is the pope, due to Vatican protocol.

At any time, a family may object to an autopsy of one of their family members, but this could be due to some a personally family reasons (perhaps a cultural one).

The Catholic Church teaches that both organ transplants and autopsies are morally acceptable in our times.

For organ transplants the Catechism of the Catholic Church has the following to say:

  Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a expression of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent. Moreover, it is not morally admissible to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons. - Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2296.

For autopsies the Catechism of the Catholic Church has the following to say:

  Autopsies can be morally permitted for legal inquests or scientific research. The free gift of organs after death is legitimate and can be meritorious. The Church permits cremation, provided that it does not demonstrate a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body. - Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2301.

Although popes may be embalmed after death, Vatican tradition does not permit the body of a pope to be autopsied. No pope has ever given this decision making ability to any Cardinal or to the College of Cardinals as a whole.

  The current regulations regarding a papal interregnum were promulgated by John Paul II in his 1996 document Universi Dominici Gregis. During the vacancy caused by a pope's death the College of Cardinals is collectively responsible for the government of the Catholic Church and of the Vatican itself, under the direction of the Cardinal Chamberlain. Canon law specifically forbids the cardinals from introducing any innovation in the government of the Church during the vacancy of the Holy See.

  A dead pope's body then lies in state for a number of days before being interred in the crypt of a leading church or cathedral. The popes of the twentieth century were all interred in St. Peter's Basilica. A nine-day period of mourning (novem dialis) follows after the interment of the late pope. Vatican tradition holds that no autopsy is to be performed on the body of a dead pope. - Papacy

This tradition, however, would probably be waived if there were actual suspicion of serious foul play or something like that.


What is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? In Matthew 12:31-32, Jesus says:

  Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people,
  but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever
  speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever
  speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this
  age or in the age to come. (Matthew 12:31-32 ESV)

In the KJV, this is called "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost".

What does this refer to?

PS: I have taken a look at a related question(Are there unforgivable sins?), but I would like more answers to this specific question.

To understand blasphemy against the Spirit, one first needs to understand what blasphemy is. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines it thusly:

  Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name. St. James condemns those "who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called." The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ's Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God's name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God's name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.

Basically, it's going against God's will and treating Him with anything less than the respect and love He deserves.

The Holy Spirit, being one part of the Holy Trinity, is what confers the gift of grace upon people. So, to blaspheme against the Spirit is to willfully reject God's grace and forgiveness. Or as the Catechism puts it:

  "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven." There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

The analogy I've heard is that it's to know God exists and know His power, but to believe you can do better. If you're familiar with the story of the fall of Lucifer/Satan, it's essentially his actions in a nutshell: he knew God exists and he knew God's divine grace, yet he openly rejected it.

And thats why it's so unforgivable: God can't forgive you or save you if you reject His ability to do so.


Does the Christian Old Testament have the exact same list of books as the Jewish Bible? Does the Christian Old Testament include exactly the same books that are in the Jewish Bible (called the Tanakh in Judaism)? Are there any differences between the Christian Old Testament and the Jewish Bible?

The Christian Old Testament is the Jewish Bible.

They are the same books, but in a different order. Some Christian churches also add the deuterocanonical books, which are not held as scripture by the Jewish Bible.


Why does the Coptic church still perform circumcisions? Circumcision is a requirement from The Mosaic Law:

  Any uncircumcised male who has not been circumcised in the flesh of
  his foreskin will be cut off from his people – he has failed to carry
  out my requirement. (Gen. 17:14, NIV)

However the old laws are no longer a requirement based on being saved by grace.

  For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not
  from yourselves, it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8, NIV)

I understand that the Coptic Orthodox Church still practices circumcision. What is the Biblical basis for this?

Actually they don't; it is derived from Egyptian culture, not necessarily Christian Coptic. The Coptic Church does infant baptism as a sign of the covenant, and you should know that the Coptic Church holds to the view that the Church is the New Israel.


Did Jesus teach separation of church and state? Related: Biblical basis for the separation of church and state

In @Richard's answer on the provided link, he mentioned Mark 12:17 as foundation for Christ teaching separation of church and state.

I was wondering if this is to be taken as doctrine (meaning that the government should always be separated from the Church), or if it should be taken as advice on what to do if government is not united with the Church.

We all know that power corrupts. We've seen it many times in the Old Testament; One particular example of this (off the top of my head) is David, who was a prophet, and a very strong spiritual leader at that.

So, for the actual question:

Are we to understand that Jesus taught separation of Church and state as part of His new Gospel? If not, are we to understand that unification of the Church and the state government is a desirable thing (like in some Islamic states)?

Note:

We have, of course, seen the Catholic Church act as (or have a strong influence on) the government in pre-Protestant times; as we all know, the Catholic Church dealt with a lot of corruption in the leadership, so I don't think this can be taken as evidence of a formal declaration of doctrine.

Richard's answer isn't really teaching for separation of church and state, but rather evidence against fighting it. It shows we are to obey the authorities, but it doesn't say the government cannot be a specific religion. Jesus never taught to keep it separated (that is recorded at least), so it cannot be taken as doctrine. At the same time, he also never preached that the unification is desired.

To have a government that has Christian values would, of course, be desirable (the Bible is considered to be the greatest book of morals ever written by a lot of non-Christians). However, Christianity is about choosing to have a relationship with Jesus. To have a government that forces everyone to be Christian could easily cause a lot of people to conform publicly, but resent Jesus privately. This is why I believe He never tried to make that unification.


What are the current guidelines for Jehovah's Witnesses regarding blood use in medical treatment? There have been a lot of new methodologies developed in medicine that isolates specific fractions of blood for use in specific needs of individuals. Whole blood is rarely transfused anymore.

My understanding is that a wide variety of fractions of blood are now being accepted as medical therapy by Jehovah's Witnesses. Is a Minor Blood Fraction a Small Amount of Blood?

What exactly is the official position of JWs now as regards use of blood and blood products for patients?

Indeed there have been adjustments in the no blood stance of JWs that correspond with the advancing medical processing of donated blood.
At first blood was transfused with no processing at all (whole blood). That was and is still rejected as a violation of biblical directives.
However blood can now be separated into all of its many components. Once that process goes beyond the 4 major components ( red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets , plasma ) the use of blood fractions becomes a conscience matter for each individual to contemplate prayerfully before deciding yes I will accept that or no I will not accept that.

In the book "Keep Yourselves in Gods Love"
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102008086

there is the following information that lays out the current guidelines regarding Jehovah's Witnesses and the medical use of blood and blood fractions:

  Blood Fractions and Surgical Procedures
  Blood fractions. Fractions are derived from the four primary blood components—red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma. For example, red cells contain the protein hemoglobin. Products developed from human or animal hemoglobin have been used to treat patients who have acute anemia or massive blood loss.

  Plasma—which is 90 percent water—carries scores of hormones, inorganic salts, enzymes, and nutrients, including minerals and sugar. Plasma also carries clotting factors, antibodies to fight disease, and such proteins as albumin. If someone is exposed to a certain disease, doctors might prescribe injections of gamma globulin extracted from the plasma of people who already had immunity. White blood cells may be a source of interferons and interleukins, used to treat some viral infections and cancers.

  Should Christians accept therapies incorporating blood fractions? The Bible does not give specific details, so each one must make his own conscientious decision before God. Some would refuse all fractions, reasoning that God’s Law to Israel required that blood removed from a creature be poured “out on the ground.” (Deuteronomy 12:22-24) Others, while refusing transfusions of whole blood or its major components, might accept treatments involving a fraction. They may reason that at some point fractions that have been extracted from blood cease to represent the life of the creature from which the blood was taken.

  When making decisions about blood fractions, consider the following questions: Am I aware that refusing all blood fractions means that I will not accept some medications that include products to fight diseases or that might help the blood to clot in order to stop bleeding? Could I explain to a physician why I reject or accept the use of one or more blood fractions?

  Surgical procedures. These include hemodilution and cell salvage. In hemodilution, blood is diverted from the body, replaced with a volume expander, and later returned to the patient. Cell salvage captures and returns blood lost during surgery. Blood is recovered from a wound or a body cavity, washed or filtered, and then reinfused into the patient. Because the methods of applying these techniques can vary from physician to physician, a Christian should find out what his doctor has in mind.

  When making decisions about these procedures, ask yourself: ‘If some of my blood will be diverted outside my body and the flow might even be interrupted for a time, will my conscience allow me to view this blood as still part of me, thus not requiring that it be poured “out on the ground”? (Deuteronomy 12:23, 24) Would my Bible-trained conscience be troubled if during a medical procedure some of my own blood was withdrawn, modified, and directed back into my body? Am I aware that refusing all medical procedures involving the use of my own blood means that I would not accept a blood test, hemodialysis, or a heart-lung bypass machine?’
  A Christian must decide for himself how he will allow his own blood to be handled in the course of a surgical procedure. The same applies to medical tests and current therapies that involve extracting a small amount of one’s own blood, perhaps modifying it in some way, and then reinjecting it.


Which Prominent Modern Religions Came from the "Great Awakenings" and What Have They Done For the World? Since the 1700's there have been a number of so-called "Great Awakenings".

What are in fact the most prominent religions to come from the Awakenings and what are they most known to have introduced?

More on the Question

  But wisdom is proved right by all her children. - Luke 7:35

While the times since Christ have seen quite a few splinter groups and factions forming, the last 200 years could be likened to an explosion in comparison.

Why is this question important?

  You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness,
  how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything,
  except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. - Matthew 5:13-16

At this time we are somewhere between the traditional and the new age -- the purists becoming smaller in number and the interfaith movement is well along. At this point of saturation I was curious if it is possible to summarize the spiritual heritage that led to modern world developments as influenced by these denominations rising from the "Great Awakening".

In short, the "mainline" Christian denominations/religions existed before the "Great Awakenings," although smaller denominations/religions such as the LDS, the Seventh Day Adventists, the JW emerged through these periods of revival.  The "Evangelical" denominations emerged out of a separate revivalist tradition centered on the West Coast around the turn of the 20th Century (for more info read Hayford, Jack W.; Moore, S. David (2006). The Charismatic Century: The Enduring Impact of the Azusa Street Revival).

A longer answer really begins to question whether the historical theory of the "Great Awakenings" is even correct.  Jon Butler most famously attacked the theory of the "First Great Awakening" in his book Awash in a Sea of Faith.  Butler argues that the traditional theory of Christian Revival spurring on Revolutionary fervor in the years leading up to the American Revolution is invalid and that there is no evidence for a wide-spread revival like traditional textbooks teach.  No other historian has been able to completely refute his claims in these regards.  However, there is no way to ignore the major revivals in the 1740s and 50s in New England.  These revivals though, led to more schism within the Congregationalist tradition than positive change.

The "Second Great Awakening" is the movement which produced smaller denominations/religions such as the LDS, the Seventh Day Adventists, and the JW.  The "Second Great Awakening" occurred in the aftermath of the American Revolution, although it was more of a reaction to the departure of the Church of England and its missionary societies.  When Church of England clergy and money left the colonies, there was a void to be filled in American religious life.  This second "Awakening" is what made the Mainline denominations mainline.  In many colonies they took over former Church of England buildings and congregations.  It took many years from the departure of the Church of England for the Mainline denominations to completely organize themselves[edit: in the modern legal sense]; and within this time, doctrine within the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist movements were fairly fluid.  In her book Southern Cross, Christine Heyrman writes how a Methodist revivalist could found a Baptist congregation because of doctrinal confusion and petty squabbling amongst congregants.  This doctrinal confusion led to the creation of more denominations.

Getting back to your question, the "Great Awakenings" led to the creation of new denominations/religions because of confusion over doctrine and squabbling.  I am personally more of a historian than a theologian, so I leave it up to others whether this was an issue of true doctrinal disputes or an issue of schism.  This is also a very broad summary of very complex movements, and I am sure I have failed to do them justice in some regards, but this is generally how current research perceives the "Great Awakening"s.

The most significant influence that the "Great Awakenings" have had that is generally upheld  by scholars is making religion more individualistic.  The theology of Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans/Episcopalians is generally collective (e.g. the Church and her sacraments being important in an individual's salvation) while the "revival theology" of most Protestant denominations is much more individual (e.g. the emphasis on personally receiving Christ and even hymns such as "O What a Friend We Have in Jesus").  A lot of this "revival theology" comes out of the "Great Awakenings"

I know this was quite long, but I hope this helps you.


How does Samson foreshadow Christ? Samson is an Old Testament character that is often depicted from the pulpit as a womanizer of marginal character.  However, there seems to be a growing perspective that Samson foreshadows first advent Christ.  Is there any record in Church history that would support this growing perspective?

Early Christian theologians find many analogies or types of Christ, the church, and the world in the story of Samson.  Samson himself is often seen to be a type of Christ, but other times, he is considered a type of the church or even the world.  Caesarius of Arles (468–542) writes extensively on the analogies he sees in Samson's story, and summarizes his method of analysis:

What was the meaning of Samson? If I say he signified Christ, it seems to me that I speak the truth.  However, the thought immediately occurs to anyone who reflects: Was Christ overcome by the flattery of a woman?  How is Christ understood to have gone in to a harlot? [...] Inasmuch as Samson performed virtues and miracles he prefigured Christ, the head of the Church.  When he acted prudently, he was an image of those who live justly in the Church, but when he was overtaken and acted carelessly, he represented those who are sinners in the Church. (118.3)1

This is an important point: the authors identifying Samson with Christ do not do so blindly.  Their methods of biblical interpretation allow a variety of images to be drawn from the text, and sometimes more than one.  One stark example will suffice for our purposes here: when Samson kills the lion in Judges 14:5–9, Caesarius sees the lion as an image of Christ, since "to us Christ is a lion in whose mouth we found the food of honey after His death" (119.1).  Conversely, Samson, far from typifying Jesus, is said to represent the "Jewish people who killed Christ" (119.2). However, as we'll see, other writers make different connections in this particular story.
Turning now specifically to the connections drawn between Christ and Samson, we can put them into a few categories:

Samson's wife
Samson's humiliation
Samson's victories over his enemies

We'll draw primarily on the writings of Caesarius, but also those of Ephrem the Syrian (306–373), Augustine (354–430), and Gregory the Great (540–604).2
Samson's wife
One place where Caesarius sees Samson representing Jesus is in his relationship with his Philistine wife.  Like Christ, Samson takes a sinful bride:

The harlot whom Samson married is the Church which committed fornication with idols before knowing one God, but which Christ afterwards united to Himself. (118.3)

The analogy is extended to Samson's friend, who took away Samson's wife:

Then follow the words: 'Samson was angry because a friend married his wife.'  This friend prefigured all heretics.  It is a great mystery, my brethren.  Heretics who divide the Church have wanted to marry the wife of the Lord and carry her away. (118.4)

Samson's humiliation and death
Samson's final humiliation begins when his hair is cut in Judges 16:18–21.  Caesarius writes that the strength found in Samson's hair is analogous to the "strength in a covering" that Jesus had "when the shadows of the old law protected him."  When the law was rejected by the killers of Christ, he suffered, and his purpose was revealed, like Samson suffered and had his secret exposed when his "covering" was cut. (118.6)
This humiliation led to Samson's imprisonment and death, paralleling Christ's:

Samson was condemned to prison, while Christ deigned to descend into hell.  Samson extended his hands to the pillars, and the house of the Philistines fell with its princes; Christ stretched out His hands to the two beams of the cross as to two pillars, overthrowing and destroying the house or kingdom of the devil and his angels. (120.4)
Notice here an image of the cross.  Samson extends his hands spread out to the two columns as to the two beams of the cross. (118.6)

Samson's victories over enemies
Lion
Unlike Caesarius, Ephrem the Syrian sees Samson as an type of Christ in his defeat of the lion:

The Nazirite, Samson, gazed at the type
of Your courage. He tore the lion apart,
the likeness of death.  You ripped [death] asunder
and made the sweet life emerge
from its bitterness for human beings3

Similarly, Augustine:

Who was in Samson, when he killed the lion that met him as he went to get a wife among strangers, but He who, when going to call His Church from among the Gentiles, said, "Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world?"4

Philistines with the jawbone
Caesarius notes several places where Samson's victory over his enemies parallels that of Christ.  For example, his defeat of 1,000 Philistines in Judges 15:14–16:

Before the coming of Christ all the Gentiles were torn to pieces by the devil and lay scattered like dry bones form the ass's body, but when Christ the true Samson came, He seized them all in His holy hands.  He restored them to the hands of His power, and with them overcame His and our adversaries. (119.4)

Philistines and their gates
Samson's capture and subsequent victory over the Philistines in Judges 16:1–3 is explained by Gregory the Great as an image of Christ's death and resurrection:

What does the city of Gaza signify, if not hell, the abode of the dead?  What is shown by the Philistines, if not the mistaken confidence of the Jews?  For, when the Jews saw that the Lord was dead, and his body placed in the tomb, they posted guards around it.  They were delighted that Jesus, whom the author of life had glorified, was now held captive by the gates of death, just as the Philistines were exultant that they had imprisoned Samson in Gaza.  However, in the middle of the night, Samson not only escaped, but carried the gates away with him.  Just so did our Redeemer, rising against before it was light, not only walk free out of death and of hell, but also destroy hell's very gates.5

Caesarius sees matters similarly, and, like Gregory, extends the image to include the ascension:

Moreover, he removed the city gates, that is, He took away the gates of hell.  What does it mean to remove the gates of hell, except to take away the power of death? He took it away and did not return it.  Furthermore, what did our Lord Jesus Christ do after He had taken away the gates of death?  He went up to the top of a mountain.  Truly, we know that He both arose and ascended into heaven. (118.5)

Philistines in death
Of course, Samson's greatest victory is associated with his death, like Christ's:

In the fact that he is written to have destroyed more enemies at his death than he struck before in the whole course of his life, the mystery of the Lord's Passion is shown, for through it the house of the devil fell and the kingdom of death was shattered. (120.4)

Ephrem connects the freedom Samson purchases with his life to that of Christ:

Samson is a type of the death of Christ the high priest:
Samson's death returns prisoners to their towns,
whereas the High Priest's death has returned us to our heritage6

Summary
Christian theologians in the fourth century identified Samson with Christ in particular ways, and additional analogies were developed by authors in the centuries immediately following.  In particular, the humiliation and victories of Samson lend themselves to parallels with the humiliation and final victory of Christ.

References and notes:

Caesarius of Arles, Sermons 118, 119, and 120, in  Sermons, Volume 2
Ambrose teaches on Samson in On the Holy Spirit, Book II, but does not connect Samson to Christ in the same way as do the other authors here.  Jerome says that "every one of the popular leaders" in Judges is a type of some kind in Letter 53.  Samson receives only fleeting mention in the surviving writigs of the earliest fathers.
Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns, Hymn 13.4, 137
Augustine, Reply to Faustus, Book XII, §32
Gregory the Great, Forty Gospel Homilies, 21, in Reading the Gospels with Gregory the Great, 36
Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns on Paradise, 13.12.13, in Ancient Christian Commentary, 167