In which year did Chesterton write the 'I am' (what's wrong with the world) letter? In which year G. K. Chesterton wrote the letter with the message?

  Dear Sirs:

  I am.

  Sincerely Yours,

  G. K. Chesterton

This letter was an answer to the question: "What is wrong with the world?".

This story is no doubt related to the 1910 publication of Chesterton's book What's Wrong With the World, the dedication to which contains a number of jokes at Chesterton's expense:

  Many a mild lady visitor opened her eyes when I remarked casually, "I have been doing 'What is Wrong' all this morning." And one minister of religion moved quite sharply in his chair when I told him (as he understood it) that I had to run upstairs and do what was wrong, but should be down again in a minute.

It is not entirely certain whether Chesterton did write this letter, although Dale Ahlquist, president of the American Chesterton Society, believes it's likely true. There appears to be no evidence of the letter.

  This story has been repeated so often about Chesterton that we suspect it is true. Also, it seems it is never told about any one other than Chesterton. What we have not found, however, is any documentary evidence for it. It may indeed be from The Times, as the story is usually told, but no one has taken the trouble to go through the back issues and find a copy of the actual letter. It has also been attributed to other papers, but again, no proof.

Source: Website of the American Chesterton Society


Are there tenets of Rastafarianism that run counter to Baptist theology? I am a Baptist and I have no desire to call myself a Rasta but I believe in some things they believe in such as living clean, peace, unity, etc. Is it wrong to identify with those things?

Many say that Rastafarianism isn't a religion but more a way of life. Would any of their practices (excluding calling Haile Selassie god) be considered sinful by a Baptist congregation?

When it comes down to it the rastafari have derived many things from christianity and judaeism. Some of the major points that make Rastafari diverse from your christian faith (exclluding calling haile selassie God) is that Rastafari often take up the Nazarite vow hence the dread locks, the Rastafari terminalogy such as, "I and I", "jah Rastafari"...etc., also its very important,to mention the extreme importance that, Rastas put upon marijuana and the huge role it plays in there faith and rituals, and the fact of the afrocentrism rastas perpetuate hold certain aspects of there faith, for instance many rastas believe themselves and african americans to be among the lost tribes of Israel, they refer to a book called the kaebra negaust as sacred account of King solomon forming a special bond with ethiopia by bearing a son from the ethiopian queen and creating a Solomonic dynasty after the prince took the throne of his mother.

Do these above mentioned things conflict with baptist christian practice? That will always be based upon opinion.


What do Christian Pacifists believe is necessary for a killing to be justified? Christian Pacifists, for example Mennonites, are often portrayed (and indeed frequently portray themselves) as believing that violence, especially lethal violence, is never justified.  I am sure this is not actually the case, as God explicitly causes the death of several people in various circumstances in the Bible.  Furthermore, God orders the Jews to kill people at various times for various reasons, and seems to condone and approve of killings such as, for example, those done by Esther, where the killer is not visibly ordered to perform the killing by God.  While I'm sure there is an explanation, I am unsure what it is, so:

When (i.e. in what situations) do Christian Pacifists believe killing is acceptable and when do they think it is actually good and why do they think these things, keeping in mind the various justified killings we see throughout the Bible and Sacred Tradition.

All the examples you are asking about are from the Old Testament. Fundamentally it is important to realize that Christianity is not the same a Judaism. The coming of Jesus Christ ushered in a New Covenant, and a new way of doing things. Many things in Christianity are changed from Judaism, and according to the Peace Churches, pacifism is one. Just as animal sacrifice was a necessary 'temporary measure' until the real sacrifice was made, so are the killings of the Old Testament a necessary measure until the New Law could be brought into place. The events you describe in your first paragraph take place under the 'old rules'.

To answer the question in the second paragraph, most Christian pacifists believe that it is never right for a Christian to kill. Most also believe that no forms of violence are ever right for Christians. Many would believe that it is acceptable for the state or government to kill as part of its job of lawfully protecting its citizens, but that it is not right for Christians to take part in that process. Many of those churches also believe in separating themselves very clearly from the state, so that they can never be associated with any state-sponsored killing.


Non-Catholic and more obscure alternatives to an exorcism? In popular media, whenever there is a case of demonic possession or oppression, I almost always see a Catholic response to the supernatural forces at work.  The Catholic Church being as prominent as it is, that isn't entirely surprising.  I have recently seen other films that try to branch out from this: THE POSSESSION deals with a dybbuk box and Jewish exorcism, for example; and THE LAST EXORCISM, I believe (perhaps wrongfully) takes a more Southern-influenced Protestant alternative.

So I guess my question is: if there were to be a case of demonic possession that a non-Catholic Christian church became aware of, believed to be genuine, and was willing to confront, what would be an alternative to the pop-culture Catholic method?

I myself live in the South, and was raised Baptist, although I don't conform to any one denomination.  I've never heard of a Baptist congregation confronting someone they believed to be possessed, but I'm not going to say it doesn't happen.  I can't speak for other denominations either, in any part of the country, and I'm just curious as to see if anyone has more knowledge on the subject that I do.  I know that there are certain traditions that exist, however, although I don't know that I can call them formal traditions: pastors and congregations praying around a house, for example, or praying over the afflicted, etc.

I'm currently writing a book about this sort of thing, and I'm trying to do my due diligence by researching some of this stuff I know woefully little about.  So anything you would be able to help me with would be greatly appreciated.  Please and thank you.

A resource that you should find helpful in your endeavour is Don Basham's Deliver us From Evil, A Pastor's reluctant encounters with the powers of darkness.

My recollection of the book is that Basham is (or was) actually a Baptist pastor, though I don't remember the variety.


What does the Bible say about life before conception? I recently spoke with a friend of mine and he was wondering if we are alive before conception. We know that there is life after death according to the Bible, but what does the Bible say about "life" before birth?

All I could dig up was this:

  Jeremiah 1:4-5 (ESV)
  4  Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 5   “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
  and before you were born I consecrated you;
  I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

And this:

  Psalm 139:15-16 (NIV1984)
  15 My frame was not hidden from you
     when I was made in the secret place.
  When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
  16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
  All the days ordained for me
     were written in your book
     before one of them came to be.

Any insight?

Edit: It is clear that we do not have physical being before birth but is there something in the Bible that might prove or disprove the existence of our souls before conception?

The Bible doesn't explicitly say whether or not we exist prior to conception.  The Psalm 139 passage you referenced indicates that God knew us before we were born and saw our unformed body.  However, this is not a definitive statement that we existed prior to birth.  Contextually, it seems much more probably to be referring to the omniscience of God (from whom I cannot hide, and who is with me wherever I go...)

It could be instructive to ask what would need to be in the Scriptures to give sufficient evidence for the belief in pre-conception existence.  If there were a verse that indicated God spoke to us or heard our prayers prior to conception or indicated we had made a decision prior to conception--those would be quite significant.  No such verses exists, though.

In Psalm 51, David asserts that "I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me"--but not before is mother conceived him.  This is quite a significant distinction.

Finally, if it were true that we existed prior to conception, we must wonder why nothing in the Bible explicitly or definitively states this.  On the contrary, we are given reasons to disbelieve this doctrine, but not conclusive reasons to believe it.  For a doctrine or idea that is characterized by such evidence it seems prudent to retain skepticism regarding it.


If God wants everyone to repent, why God didn't do such miracles in Tyre and Sidon? Matthew 11:21

  “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles done in
  you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago
  in sackcloth and ashes.

If so and God wants everyone to repent, why God didn't do such miracles in Tyre and Sidon?

There are several possibilities:

  And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith. (Matthew 13:58)

It is not in God's nature to forcefully 'prove himself' to the cynic. Jesus may have simply been indicating that had Tyre and Sidon been anticipating the Messiah, they would have received Jesus better than the very people God had shepherded for thousands of year. However, such miracles were not done there as their openness to them was non-existent.
The messianic mission of God had reached an incredibly special point. The Jewish people did not seem to grasp just how special the occasion was. Jesus stressed this to them on several occasions

  For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to
  see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did
  not hear it. (Matthew 13:17)

And in the scriptures you mentioned, where Jesus basically says, 'Hey even the people you remember from history who were completely wicked would have recognized how special this moment is.'
It may be that to preserve human choice, God reveals himself to people enough for rational proof, but not so much as to convict them without recourse. How hard the hearts of his listeners must have been if the miracles shown to them would have been for Tyre and Sidon conviction without recourse.


Interpreting the Bible as a cultural piece of literature? A lot of churches I've gone to and conversations I've had with family and friends always speak so absolute and/or literal about the bible. Are there thoughts on the bible as being a cultural piece of literature only intended for the audience at the time?

The bible seems to have a lot of cultural references for the time that it was written. Probably the most relevant instance is "the eye of the needle" in Matthew. To my understanding, it's not literal at all. It's not talking about a physical sewing needle but a small gate in the town wall. These kinds of references are lost of today's culture if you only read the bible. What if a lot of our understandings are misunderstandings of cultural habits/events/places at the time?

What if the law on eating pork was only because the culture at the time didn't clean the pork properly? It wasn't spiritually dirty, just literally dirty.

What if premarital sex is only looked down on because "premarital" meant 11 or 12 year old girls because of the cultural standard of young marriages?

These are examples of possible misinterpretations, not questions I'm trying to get answered.

What kind of interpretation of the bible lends itself to the bible being cultural and not intended to be timeless?

(DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying the bible is wrong or does not have valid lessons to learn. Just curious about the thought of interpreting it through specific contexts.)

Let me preface this by saying that I'm making the implicit assumption that the reader has some typical form of Christian belief (so I don't have to keep saying it).

The Bible, as a piece of literature, was written for people in a specific time and culture.

In that sense, it behooves those who try to understand the Bible to also understand the culture as much as we can, because there is a longstanding (millennia) tradition of reading the text as a vessel of timeless truth—describing God, humanity, and reality—that has eternally important value to the rest of the world (those outside the time/culture of the original audience).

What you say about understanding the culture is important to understanding the message as it was meant to be understood by the original audience. Just because it is imbued with cultural references does not mean that it strictly applies only to that culture, though. Passages that describe God, while cached in the language of some culture, are not truths that change. All truth claims (historical and spiritual) are also timeless and unchanging. Even if the Christian doesn't correctly understand them, that does not negate the true meaning nor does it limit what is intended for the reader to understand.

This understanding of culture is supposed to aid the reader in understanding what God intends for him to know.

Cultural references do not limit the scope of a command.

It seems like the safest assumption on the part of the reader to believe that God means what he says and does not have trouble expressing himself. When God wants to limit the scope of a command, he does so.

  Genesis 17:7 (NASB)
  "I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you..."

  Hosea 1:2 (NASB)
  the LORD said to Hosea, "Go, take to yourself a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry..."

God is addressing commands to a certain group of people. It's conceivable that a command could be limited without saying so, but generally, if you look around at the context, it is very clear who such commands are for. To assume that a command is limited unless God says it applies to everyone seems like a risky way to interpret his words.

Examples

To briefly address your (hypothetical) examples, for the most important commands, it is usually pretty easy to see the concept addressed from multiple angles and thus arrive at a very reasonable understanding of what is intended.

In the case of premarital sex (or any sort of fornication), here are some different places that provide insight into what is meant by such a prohibition.

Genesis 39:9 (NASB) How then could I do this great evil and sin against God?
Joseph is rejecting the advances of a married woman.
Exodus 22:16 and Leviticus 18
prohibitions of sex
Genesis 2:24 (NASB)
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife ; and they shall become one flesh.
the only universal description of what marriage is and its (implied) boundaries

If you look at the command from multiple angles, you get a fairly good idea of what is meant by the prohibition: marriage is meant for a man and a woman married to each other.

Without attempting to address all possible issues, I offer this as a reliable method for understanding what is written so that unstated cultural knowledge doesn't need to be a hindrance (or a worry) to the reader.

What kind of interpretation of the bible lends itself to the Bible being cultural and not intended to be timeless?

Does the Bible mean what I think it means, or does it have a meaning of its own and I need to understand that meaning? For the text not to be timeless, it seems one would have to assume something like the former. To assume that much of the Bible isn't meant to be sufficiently understood as to be useful or that we cannot know what it means is to invalidate it as a reliable source of information. It seems that such an approach would go against any definition of orthodox Christianity and Biblical interpretation.

To answer your other question, I would say that this is a risky exegetical method that a numerical majority of Christians do not employ because it is primarily used by people who don't wish to believe/obey the parts of the text that they do not like.


What were the advantages of a monarchy system that Israel wanted? From Israel's perspective, what were the advantages of being a monarchy "just like other nations" (1 Samuel 8:5)? What negative effects during the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon did Israel experience by being a monarchy?

Some students of the Bible may be quick to judge Israel for her desire to conform to the nations around them by asking for a king, and perhaps their negative judgment is at least partially deserved. In Israel's favor, however, is that the prophet Samuel's sons did not walk in the ways of their father and his God. First Samuel chapter 8 tells us they

  turned aside after dishonest gain and took bribes and perverted justice (v.3b).

"Then," the following verse begins, "all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel . . . and they said to him, 'Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations" (vv.4-5).

As good a prophet and judge as Samuel was, his fathering skills may have been lacking. The Scriptures do not tell us one way or the other. From the elders' perspective, perhaps they were justified, in a sense, in asking for a king to rule over them. On the other hand, during Samuel's day there was a school of prophets which provided a pool from which God could select a suitable candidate to replace Samuel when he died (see 10:5 and 10). The elders, however, were evidently not willing to wait.

To Samuel's credit, the first thing he did after hearing the request of the elders was to pray to the LORD for guidance (v.6). God then said to Samuel,

  Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them (v.7; cf.10:17-19).

Furthermore, in obedience to God, Samuel laid out for the people exactly what they could expect from a king, and it wasn't all good (which is an understatement!). The phrase Samuel iterated again and again in the hearing of the people was, "He [the king] will take . . . he will take . . . he will also take . . ." and so on (vv.10-18).

In other words, an earthly king asks a great deal of the subjects of his kingdom, since he needs to raise an army from the pool of eligible young men, hire (or impress into service) staff to serve him and his family, confiscate the best fields to provide for the needs of his family and staff, and the list goes on and on.

Did Israel heed Samuel's advice? No. Instead they said,

  No, but there shall be a king over us that we also may be like all the nations, that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles (vv.19b-20).

After talking things over again with the LORD, the LORD said to Samuel,

  "Listen to their voice and appoint them a king." So Samuel said to the men of Israel, "Go every man to his city."

An unspecified time later, the prophet Samuel

  took the flask of oil, poured it on [Saul's] head, kissed him and said, "has not the LORD anointed you a ruler over His inheritance?" (10:1).

The rest of the story, as they say, is history. Saul started out his reign well enough. God gave him the gift of prophecy, at least initially (10:9-12). As Constable observed, God also gave Israel in the person of Saul,

  a man with great personal strengths: wisdom, humility, sensitivity, physical attractiveness, and wealth. His gift of Saul was a good gift, as are all God’s gifts to His people (Luke 11:9-13). God did not give Israel a time bomb just waiting to explode. Saul failed because of the choices he made, not because he lacked the qualities necessary to succeed.

Constable also quoted G. Coleman Luck, author of “The First Glimpse of the First King of Israel,” (Bibliotheca Sacra 123:489 (January-March 1966):51):

  It remains very clear that God did not choose this king for Himself, but rather for the people. In other words, though God actually appointed Saul, Saul did not in the final analysis represent God’s choice, but the people’s choice.”

The old saw about being careful what you ask for is apropos. Israel (not to mention Samuel) would live to rue the day she asked for a king. King Saul, unlike his successor King David, was not a man after God's own heart (Acts 13:22), and though Saul did manage at times to lead Israel in victory against their oppressors, he wound up disobeying God, consulting a medium for guidance, and falling on his own sword in battle.

In conclusion, there were no advantages for Israel to have a king. The advantages were purely imaginary, and at the heart of their vain imaginings was a spiritual stupor which caused them to forget that God and God alone delivered Israel from the hand of the Egyptians and from the power of all the kingdoms that were oppressing them. Evidently, optimistic and confident-in-their-God visionaries like Joshua and Caleb were not to be found in Israel during this dark period in the history of Israel.


Is there any evidence that Lent used to be a 3 day observance? I was taught that Lent represents the 40 days Jesus spent in the desert. However, in church on Ash Wednesday, my Priest stated that it used to be 3 days and was extended to 40. I can only assume that the 3 days were the time Jesus was entombed. Was Lent ever 3 days? Was this official doctrine? And if so, when and why was it changed?

From CatholicEducation.com's history of Lent:

  Since the earliest times of the Church, there is evidence of some kind of Lenten preparation for Easter. For instance, St. Irenaeus (d. 203) wrote to Pope St. Victor I, commenting on the celebration of Easter and the differences between practices in the East and the West: "The dispute is not only about the day, but also about the actual character of the fast. Some think that they ought to fast for one day, some for two, others for still more; some make their 'day' last 40 hours on end. Such variation in the observance did not originate in our own day, but very much earlier, in the time of our forefathers" (Eusebius, History of the Church, V, 24). When Rufinus translated this passage from Greek into Latin, the punctuation made between "40" and "hours" made the meaning to appear to be "40 days, twenty-four hours a day." The importance of the passage, nevertheless, remains that since the time of "our forefathers" -- always an expression for the apostles -- a 40-day period of Lenten preparation existed. However, the actual practices and duration of Lent were still not homogenous throughout the Church.

So, I suppose that the answer is that there is evidence that it was 3 days some places, but this was never official policy of the Church Universal.

As a note: the length of Lent is not a doctrine, but a practice. While it is EXTREMELY doubtful that the length will ever change, it is theoretically possible for the Vatican to make some pronouncement changing it.


Kids christian music from the 80's When I was a little kid, I used to listen to these tapes at night as I fell asleep. They made a big impression on me. I can't for the life of me figure out what they were (my parents have no clue) or where/if I can get them on CD.

The one song I remember most clearly is one that began with two kids talking about "forgiving 7x7x7x7x7x7x7x7..." Then, the song had the lyrics, "Be kind, one to another. Open hearted, forgiving each other. For even as God for Jesus sake, has forgiven you." Another one had the kids playing "Eye Spy" or something like that (maybe while it was raining?) and by the end of the skit/piece one of the kids spies something that's "red and yellow and orange and blue and..." and one of the kids objects that that isn't possible, and then they talk about rainbows or something. These are all vague recollections from about 25 years ago, so, I know I'm not giving a whole lot to go off of here...

We always referred to it as "the Creek Bank Kids". I found a cd online called "Down by the Creek Bank" but after contacting the publisher Agapeland, they responded to my inquiry about this and said they didn't recognize it, so it isn't them...

Anyone have any ideas? Thanks!

I listened to a lot of this type of music as a kid.  These kids musical albums, featuring kids singing the songs and some sort of story that runs in between the songs, were very popular in the 80s.  Churches and Christian schools often performed these as stage productions with kids.

Some of the more notable producers of these Christian kids musicals include:

Agapeland, which you mentioned, was a big publisher of this format, featuring "Music Machine," "Bullfrogs and Butterflies," "Nathaniel the Grublet," and others.
Dottie Rambo's "Down By the Creek Bank" was extremely popular.
Jimmy and Carol Owens wrote several musicals, most notably "Ants'hillvania."
Debbie Kerner and Ernie Rettino created Psalty the Singing Songbook musicals, with titles "The Kids Praise Album!", "Kids Praise! 2," "Kids Praise! 3," etc.
Joyful Heart Music is the home of Colby the Computer (who also had a TV series) and Nannybird.
Kathie Hill is also a prolific producer of kids musicals, notably "Back at the Creekbank" (a sequel to "Down By the Creek Bank"), "Fish Tales," and many others.

I don't recognize the "forgiving" song you mentioned, but I am almost positive that the "I-Spy" song and the rainbow song you mentioned are from Kathie Hill's "Back at the Creekbank," the songs being "Riddle Me, Riddle Me" and "It's a Rainbow."


What's the importance of Fasting? What's the importance of Fasting? I've felt compelled at times to fast, but I'm not quite sure what the purpose is. I went online and found that it's very healthy for your body, it's something that a lot of secular people do as well as spiritual.

But I'm not quite sure that I fully understand the spiritual reasons for fasting. Does anybody have any insight into this?

Biblical teaching and accounts

Isaiah 58:3-11 taught the Isrealites of their false motives to fast, clarified some of the best reasons for fasting and listed both physical and spiritual benefits that would result.

Jesus himself teaches fasting in private in Matthew 6:16-18 and that you'll be rewarded by God.

Jesus was questioned in Mark 2:18-21.

Other instances of fasting in the Bible are Moses, David, and others


Resurrection and Deuteronomy 13 It seems that Christian apologetics very much rests on the historical veracity of the resurrection. That is, if we can verify the resurrection, than we have an objective rationale to believe in the Christian faith.

Let's assume for a moment that William Craig is correct that there is good evidence for the resurrection. Even so, does this conclude that Jesus was in fact who he said he was, i.e. the son of God?

Deuteronomy 13:1-4 reads as follows:

"If there appears among you a prophet or a dream-diviner and he gives you a sign or a portent, saying, “Let us follow and worship another god”—whom you have not known—even if the sign or portent that he named to you comes true, do not heed the words of that prophet or that dream-diviner. For the LORD your God is testing you to see whether you really love the LORD your God with all your heart and soul. Follow none but the LORD your God, and revere none but Him; observe His commandments alone, and heed only His orders; worship none but Him, and hold fast to Him."

And the resurrection served as a sign:

"Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:38-40)

As far as a Pharisee Jew is concerned, Jesus is certainly a god "whom you have not known"; Jesus and the Trinity were completely unknown to the Jews. Thus his sign should be disregarded.

Now you might be tempted to respond that Jesus is indeed that same God that they knew,   but he just didn't come out of the closet as Jesus until later. The question would then be: how are we to know that Jesus is, in fact the same god? For that Christian apologetics has turned to the resurrection as evidence.

But the verse clearly states: " even if the sign or portent that he named to you comes true, do not heed the words" thus excluding supernatural signs as evidence! (In fact, in Exodus 7:11 even Pharoah's sorcerers were capable of performing supernatural feats.)

So we are back to square one; first we need evidence that Jesus was indeed the son of God. Then and only then, does the historicity of the resurrection have any relevance to affirming Jesus. Without prior evidence, it seems justifiable to write Jesus off as a false prophet.

Now many are quick to point out that Jesus claimed to be that very same god of the OT and even admonished Israel for not revering the god of the OT. Nonetheless, this doesn't prove that he is that very same god. Where are we to look for that verification? The resurrection? But that may just be another "sign" or "portent".

It seems that the only acceptable form of validation must come from the Old Testament itself i.e fulfilled messianic prophecies. That is, the historicity of a supernatural feat has no place in the debate between Christians and Jews.

Please note what I'm NOT saying:

Christianity therefore must be false
Deuteronomy 13 by definition must exclude Jesus
The purpose of the resurrection was to serve as a "proof"

What I AM saying:

The Resurrection in and of itself can be evaded on supernaturalistic grounds.

For mainstream Christian denominations (including Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, mainline Protestants, and Evangelicals), Resurrection is NOT the key to Jesus's identity.  Rather, the resurrection shows the VICTORY of Jesus over the power of death due to His obedience to God the Father.  If you read the four Gospels, the speeches in the book of Acts, and the letters of Paul, the identity of Jesus as the promised Messiah was determined based on the PROPHECIES in the Hebrew Bible (called the Old Testament by Christians now).  There are overwhelming details in the prophecies that matched the details of Jesus's birth, ministry, suffering, and the manner of his death on the cross.  See my answer to another question for a list of key Bible verses that Christians deem to point to Jesus.

Your charge that Jesus taught His disciples to worship another god is not true because Jesus worshiped the same God that Abraham and Moses worshiped.  The writings in the New Testament consistently show that when the 12 apostles spread the good news (that God the Father has finally sent the messiah as He promised) and established churches throughout the Roman Empire, they exhorted the church members to worship the same God the Father as well (Example, see Romans 12-13:10 where Paul instructed the church in Rome to live in the manner pleasing to God the Father; Jesus was barely mentioned and out of focus).

Of course Christians also worship Jesus as Lord, because Christians believe that the essence of Jesus is the same as the essence of God the Father.  But yes, the Pharisees in Jesus's generation didn't believe that it was God the Father who sent Jesus, so understandably this led to the charge that Jesus was a false prophet and more seriously that Jesus blasphemed God by claiming that He shared God the Father's essence.  Even the famous missionary Paul (a Pharisee who studied under the famous Rabbi Gamaliel) also hunted down Christians before his conversion (possibly so the land was not polluted with their "sins" which could have led to the anger of God the Father).  After Paul became Christian, the religious authorities in Jerusalem wanted to kill him too, just as they killed Jesus for blasphemy; see Acts 21:26-22:23.

I agree with you that the Resurrection on its own is not enough to determine Jesus's identity.  So if you notice, in the Gospels Jesus explained, especially after his resurrection, how the prophecies pointed to Him (see for example Luke 24:13-53).  Notice also how verse 53 says that not only Jesus's disciples worshiped God the Father for sending Jesus, they worshiped IN THE TEMPLE, where every Jew throughout the Roman Empire believed to have the presence of the God of Abraham, Jacob, David, etc.  It is clear then, from the very beginning, how the earliest disciples never wavered from associating the God of Jesus with the God of their ancestors.  The resurrection (along with the miracles which Jesus performed prior to his death) was simply to AUTHENTICATE that Jesus was who He said He was.  If we believe the Gospels to be roughly historically accurate (i.e. not Legend), then we are left with the famous trilemma when considering Jesus's claim of who He is.

ADDENDUM

After further reading such as here, I can see how my answer above will not be sufficient for you, because Judaism's own presuppositions judge a priori (using Deut 13:1-5) how:

Christian's God the Father is considered a different God than Judaism's God, although both Paul and Jesus emphatically credit the God of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Isaiah with all the miracles and the sending of the Messiah.
"God is not allowed" to update the Torah, so therefore Christian teaching of how Mosaic law has been superseded by the New Covenant is considered heretical outright, although according to Christians the laws that Christians are supposed to keep with the help of the New Heart (given by God) are purer and more universal.
Even if Jesus performed greater miracles than Elijah and Elisha to show that the power came from God the Father, Judaism will reject it as irrelevant, and uses Deut 13:1-5 to regard the miracles as lies and as coming from the devil, just as how the Pharisees claimed Jesus's power came from the devil, as in when Jesus healed a demon-possessed man.

As a result of the a priori rules above, it becomes a lot more complicated to make Christian teaching acceptable to adherents of Judaism.  But I did find a blogger who in fact responded to a similar charge  (that resurrection is irrelevant).  I hope his answer helps!

On further reflection, I believe the root cause between the diverging interpretations of Deut 13:1-5 is simply a different hermeneutics when reading the Scriptures, especially because in Judaism there is Oral Torah and other authorities which significantly changes one's reading of the same passage.  Yes, within Christian mainstream there are internal differences on how to interpret certain passages of Scriptures (also due to differences in hermeneutics), but they are VERY minor when compared to how Judaism reads the Hebrew Bible.  Case in point: how very different Jewish interpretation of the prophetic verses commonly used by Christians to show as predicting Jesus.  Another Jewish interpretation of the prophetic verses can be found here.  (Both links are taken from the posts of JPH who initiated the "resurrection is irrelevant" discussion on the aforementioned blogger's site).

At this point I'm just satisfied to agree to disagree.  God bless you!


Concerning the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults Why do the American and Canadian Rites of Initiation differ in numbering and in the way that the rites are sometimes celebrated?

The Canadian and American Rites of Christian Initiation differ because it is basically permitted by Rome.

  ADAPTATIONS BY THE CONFERENCES OF BISHOPS IN THE USE OF THE ROMAN RITUAL

  In addition to the adaptations envisioned in Christian Initiation, General Introduction (nos.30-33), the rite of Christian initiation of adults allows for other adaptations that will be decided by the conference of bishops.
  Each conference of bishops has discretionary power to make the following decisions:
  to establish for the precatechumenate, where it seems advisable, some way of receiving inquirers who are interested in the catechumenate (see no. 39);
  to insert into the rite of acceptance into the order of catechumens a first exorcism
  and a renunciation of false worship, in regions where paganism is widespread (see nos.
  69-72);
  to decide that in the same rite the tracing of the sign of the cross upon the forehead (nos. 54-55) be replaced by making that sign in front of the forehead, in regions where the act of touching may not seem proper;
  to decide that in the same rite candidates receive a new name in regions where it is the practice of non-Christian religions to give a new name to initiates immediately (no. 73);
  to allow within the same rite, according to local customs, additional rites that symbolize reception into the community (no. 74);
  to establish during the period of the catechumenate, in addition to the usual rites
  (nos. 81-97), ‘rites of passage’: for example, early celebration of the presentations (nos. 144-150, 165-171), the ephphetha rite (nos. 184-186), the catechumens’ recitation of the Creed (nos. 180-183), or even an anointing of the catechumens (nos. 98-102);
  to decide on the omission of the anointing with the oil of catechumens (no. 218) or
  its transferral to the preparation rites for Holy Saturday (nos. 190-194) or its use during
  the period of the catechumen ate as a kind of ‘rite of passage’ (nos. 98-100);
  to make more specific and detailed the formularies of renunciation for the rite of acceptance into the order of catechumens (nos. 70-72) and for the celebration of baptism (no. 217).

  Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults

Individuals bishops are also allowed to make further adaptions if deemed fitting.

Further insight can be obtained in this Vatican document: INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CATECHESIS ADULT CATECHESIS IN THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY SOME PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES.


Are the Old Testament prohibitions on incest applicable to Christians? The Old Testament forbids incest. Does this aspect of the Mosaic law apply to Christians?

Are the Old Testament prohibitions on incest applicable to Christians? - Yes.
Leviticus 18:16 is observed in the Gospel of [Mark 6:17-18], alluding to Christian observance all the Laws in Leviticus 18 regarding incest.

Leviticus 18:16 in regards to Mark 6:17-18 :
Mark 6:17-18 [KJV]
17 For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her.
18 For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.

Leviticus 18:16 [MT]
You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife. It is your brother's nakedness. (עֶרְוַ֥ת אֵֽשֶׁת־אָחִ֖יךָ לֹ֣א תְגַלֵּ֑ה עֶרְוַ֥ת אָחִ֖יךָ הִֽוא)


Does God care about Denominational differences? As a Protestant and Catholic household, we are aware of the differences between our two Denominations, but as Christians we are also well aware that we are bonded by a common belief that Jesus death and resurrection is the source of our salvation. We also believe that we will be together in Heaven.

For my part I feel that the God I love and serve would not turn her away at the Gates of Heaven simply because we chose to worship him in differing ceremonial settings, and I am sure she feels the same. We both serve the same YHWH Elohim.

To my feeble mind if  an all knowing God were concerned with this and if it had Eternal consequence, Jesus and God would have made that crystal clear in the Bible.

In my study the only Scripture in the King James version I find which even remotely addresses this is:

  1st Corinthians 3:5  through 13  Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

AS I read these Scriptures Paul is not saying, that any of these are wrong, as long as they are based upon the salvation provided by Jesus Christ. Please correct me if I have drawn an erroneous conclusion.

As far as the teachings of Jesus himself go, all I find is:

  John 4:21 through 24  Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Again as I understand the Scriptures Jesus is not telling them that their worship is incorrect, but what is incorrect is that they need to worship God in their spirit and in truth. Again, if I have drawn an erroneous conclusion. Please let me know.

If my conclusions are correct God does not care about,  which church house you worship him in, only that you worship him in spirit and in truth.

What saves a person is God's salvation that He has procured for us through His Son, Jesus Christ, and the faith that trusts in this grace of God (cf. Ephesians 2:1-10).  That is, we have faith that God, in His mercy, has saved us through Jesus Christ who is the resurrection and the life (cf. John 11:25-27).  The "Church" is the body of believers which is therefore united in this faith in Christ.

However, we obviously see in this world that the Church is not visibly united; i.e. there are denominations and differences among these denominations.

I think the Reformation distinction between the "visible" and "invisible" church is helpful here (see http://bookofconcord.org/defense_6_church.php ).  There is one, holy, universal Church spread throughout the whole world and time; this Church is united in Christ, having been redeemed by his blood and brought to faith in him for her salvation.  Since we can not "see" a person's faith, however, this Church is "invisible."  God knows who are His, though.

This "invisible" Church is also an article of faith, because we don't see unity in the Church on earth.  Instead, what we see on earth is the "visible" Church that is often divided, has non-believers in it, and possessed of various faults.  Denominations are an unfortunate result of the fact that we are fallen creatures and remain sinners, even though we have been redeemed and saved by Christ from this sin.

Thus, we of the Church are both saints and sinners at the same time (the Reformation phrase is "simul justus et peccattor").  We are members of the "one holy catholic and apostolic Church" that we confess we believe in through the Nicene creed.  Yet, at the same time, sin still intrudes into our relationships with each other in the Church, creating divisions.

When Christ returns, though, all these differences and separations will be undone and we will be truly united.  Adam and Eve's original sin introduced separation between humanity and God, among humanity, and between humanity and creation.  When Christ returns all these fallen relationships will be completely restored, even as they are now partially restored in the Church.  We will then have perfect communion with God, each other, and all creation (cf. Revelation 21:1-5).

So, the question naturally arises: "Why belong to a denomination at all?"  I would answer that if we believe that we are saved by God's grace through faith in Christ, then we tend to congregate with other Christians who we feel best proclaim and teach this Gospel.  This is another reason why there are denominations: we have differences of opinion as to how to best do this.  We all seek to be "orthodox" (i.e. proclaim a "right praise" of God), yet we are not perfect in this life.  So, I am a Lutheran of the LCMS (www.lcms.org), yet I am still united in Christ with Catholics, Methodists, ELCA Lutherans, Baptists, Greek Orthodox, etc...  But, when Christ returns we will all perfectly sing his praises together (cf. Rev. 19:6-8).

A short article about how Martin Luther and John Calvin's thoughts on the "visible" and "invisible" Church derive from St. Augustine's thinking is at:  http://www.augnet.org/?ipageid=2196

A great hymn that speaks to the unity we have in Christ and touches on the "visible" and "invisible" Church is "The Church's One Foundation" (http://www.hymnary.org/hymn/LSB2006/644 )


Where was Jesus before the events of the New Testament? For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son..

I only thought about this when recently explaining the difference between Old and New Testament to somebody.

Did the Son of God appear in the OT? Was his name Jesus?
Was Jesus present in Heaven (or at God's side) before he appeared on earth? Did God "send" his son to earth or was Jesus "created" on earth for the first time?

I can list many more, but limiting it to these two, I hope my question is clear.

It seems that the Second Person of the Trinity took on the name of Jesus when He entered into creation and was born of Mary.  Prior to this, He was with the Father and the Spirit.

When Jesus prays in John 17, He mentions the glory He had with the Father before the world began.

  And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with
  you before the world began.  John 17:5 NIV

Jesus, God the Son, certainly may have been the One who appeared in the Old Testament from time to time, walking in the garden with Adam and Eve, speaking to Abraham about the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah, the fourth Man in the fire with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, perhaps Melchizedek, the "angel" who wrestled with Jacob, etc.  However, He was not called Jesus until He was born into the world.

The receiving of the name "Jesus" identified the purpose for which God the Son entered into creation.  "Jesus" or "Yeshua" literally means "The Lord Saves".  So, Jesus was called "The Lord Saves", because He (the Lord) would, in fact, save His people from their sins.

  She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will
  save his people from their sins.”  Matthew 1:21 ESV


Are there any spiritual benefits in writing a diary? Question: Are there any spiritual benefits in writing a diary? There have been many saints who have wrote a diary. Is it somehow beneficial? Why? Did any saint recommend it?

I am asking the question from the Catholic viewpoint.

Yes.

For comfort. The Bible is filled with calls for people to remember the works that God has performed in the past as a means to sustain faith during present times of trouble.

  I will remember the deeds of the Lord;
      yes, I will remember your miracles of long ago. Psalm 77:11

If you have received blessings via answers to prayer, or the help of another Christian, or found solace in any other way that your faith provides, by writing down these things today, you can help yourself tomorrow, and also enable you to share God's good news with others and comfort them.

For Wisdom. In a lifetime, a faithful Christian will hear thousands of sermons, homilies and exhortations. As you incorporate these teachings of the church into your life and adapt them to your situation, and gain greater insight through practice, you will learn things that it would be tragic to forget. By writing them down and revisiting them from time to time, you will continually add to your knowledge of God and his ways, rather than continually needing to learn the same things over and over again. As Saint James said:

  23 Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like
  someone who looks at his face in a mirror 24 and, after looking at
  himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25 But
  whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and
  continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they
  will be blessed in what they do. (James 1:23-25)

A diary will help you not be that person.

For measuring growth. Do you have questions? Doctrines that perplex or offend? Teachings that make no sense? Write down your questions and use them as a springboard for study. As you find satisfactory answers to those questions later in life, write them down. This will safeguard your heart from unbelief, because nagging questions are like a cancer on your soul. And when you see tangible proof that you are growing in understanding as the questions dwindle in number, this will be a great encouragement to your soul.

  11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in
  Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and
  examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
  (Acts 17:11)

To combat prayerlessness. God never answers my prayers! How do you deal with that thought? You write down your prayers, you revisit them from time to time and renew them, and when you receive an answer, you write that down too. Over time, you will be encouraged to pray more as you see your efforts rewarded. Recall Jesus' parable of the persistent widow:

  18 Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they
  should always pray and not give up. 2 He said: “In a certain town
  there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared what people
  thought. 3 And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him
  with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary.’

  4 “For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even
  though I don’t fear God or care what people think, 5 yet because this
  widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that
  she won’t eventually come and attack me!’”

  6 And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7 And will
  not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him
  day and night? Will he keep putting them off? 8 I tell you, he will
  see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man
  comes, will he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:1-8)

Keep praying. Don't give up!

To promote joy. It is possible to journal in a destructive way, so make sure that you do not neglect thankfulness in what you write. As Paul said:

  8 Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble,
  whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is
  admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such
  things. (Philippians 4:8)

Do this and you will invite joy into your life, and journaling can play a part in it.

To mourn in a healthy way. Life is filled with trials. Turning them into poems and hymns that you record in your journal and offering them back to God can help you grieve without regret, without despair. Some of the greatest hymns in Christendom were written by men and women who experienced horrible loss. As Elihu said when comforting Job:

“People cry out under a load of oppression;
    they plead for relief from the arm of the powerful.
10 But no one says, ‘Where is God my Maker,
    who gives songs in the night,
11 who teaches us more than he teaches the beasts of the earth
    and makes us wiser than the birds in the sky?’ (Job 35:9-11)

Write down your own "songs in the night". This will help you pass through your troubles and come out on the other side more whole and healthy.


Does canonisation make one more meritorious before God? To my understanding, Catholics pray to quite a few saints, and not just to any deceased laity, and all of which special saints doubtlessly are canonised.
Does canonisation make a saint meritorious before God?

I prefer a perspective from those that have this tradition in their faith toward God.

Canonization does not change an individual's status in the eyes of  God—nothing can change that. What it does is make a declaration about what the Church thinks of them:

By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God's grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 828)

In other words, what canonization does is make it official to all Catholics that the Church recognizes, by the power of the Holy Spirit that acts in her and guides her, that a certain person has lived an undeniably holy and grace-filled life; that they may be used as models for our attempt to live out a Christian life; and that we here on Earth may ask them to intercede for us with God, to ask for God's mercy and intervention on our behalf.
It is not always the case, however, that those Christians who are recognized as saints were formally canonized. The Blessed Virgin Mary, for example, has always been thought holy, but never gone through a canonization process (not that she would have an issue!) But usually, in relatively modern times, there's been some process that the Church has put candidates for such great holiness through, not for the candidate's benefit but for the Church's.


What does Reformed Protestantism teach regarding 'spirit and soul and body' (I Thessalonians 5:23) And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. I Thessalonians 5:23 KJV

Paul lists 'spirit and soul and body' in that order, which I take to be significant and which I take to mean that the spirit ought to be considered first in such considerations.

Hebrews 4:12 KJV, makes a distinction between soul and spirit in reference to the material body :

  For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Here, the immaterial soul and spirit are likened to parts of the material body, namely the functional parts of the skeleton (the joints) which allow of movement and mechanical activity; and the living tissue of that functioning mechanism (the marrow) which is the living tissue within that mechanical structure.

Thus I understand that spirit is the unique living being of existence ; that soul is a non-material construct that allows the inner spirit to engage in non-material aspects of human existence (such as activities of the mind) ; and that the material body is the living organism functioning in the substantial world through the inhalation of oxygen from the atmosphere.

Is this what Reformed Protestantism teaches or does it teach something different from what I have understood from scripture ?

The majority position in Reformed theology is that man has two substantial natures – a material body and an immaterial soul – and that the words "soul" and "spirit" are best understood as both referring to the immaterial soul.  Berkhof (Systematic Theology, 2.1.2) summarizes the biblical evidence this way:

Trichotomists seek support in the fact that the Bible, as they see it, recognizes two constituent parts of human nature in addition to the lower or material element, namely, the soul (Heb., nephesh; Greek, psuche) and the spirit (Heb., ruach; Greek, pneuma). But the fact that these terms are used with great frequency in Scripture does not warrant the conclusion that they designate component parts rather than different aspects of human nature. A careful study of Scripture clearly shows that it uses the words interchangeably. Both terms denote the higher or spiritual element in man, but contemplate it from different points of view.

He then discusses the way these "different points of view" are expressed:

The main Scriptural distinction is as follows: the word "spirit" designates the spiritual element in man as the principle of life and action which controls the body; while the word "soul" denominates the same element as the subject of action in man, and is therefore often used for the personal pronoun in the Old Testament [...]. In several instances it, more specifically, designates the inner life as the seat of the affections.

With respect to "soul and spirit" proof texts, he points out that other passages, like Matthew 22:37, name even more things (like heart and mind), but this doesn't prove that each is a separate substance. On 1 Thessalonians 5:23 in particular, he writes:

In I Thess. 5:23 the apostle simply desires to strengthen the statement, "And the God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly," by an epexigetical statement, in which the different aspects of man's existence are summed up, and in which he feels perfectly free to mention soul and spirit alongside of each other, because the Bible distinguishes between the two. He cannot very well have thought of them as two different substances here, because he speaks elsewhere of man as consisting of two parts, Rom. 8:10; I Cor. 5:5; 7:34; II Cor. 7:1; Eph. 2:3; Col. 2:5

And on Hebrews 4:12:

Heb. 4:12 should not be taken to mean that the word of God, penetrating to the inner man, makes a separation between his soul and his spirit, which would naturally imply that these two are different substances; but simply as declaring that it brings about a separation in both between the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Charles Hodge also defends the dual nature of man (ST, 2.2.1), and on these passages he writes:

When Paul says to the Thessalonians, “I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thessalonians v. 23). he only uses a periphrasis for the whole man. [...] Again, when in Heb. iv. 12, the Apostle says that the word of God pierces so as to penetrate soul and spirit, and the joints and marrow, he does not assume that soul and spirit are different substances. The joints and marrow are not different substances. They are both material; they are different forms of the same substance; and so soul and spirit are one and the same substance under different aspects or relations. (2.2.2)

Reformed Baptist Wayne Grudem makes similar arguments in his Systematic Theology, chapter 23.  He sees Paul "piling up synonyms for emphasis" in 1 Thessalonians 5, and that the author of Hebrews is using multiple terms to describe the "deep inward parts of our being that are not hidden from the penetrating power of the Word of God."
Some, like John Frame, tend more toward monism than the preceding authors, saying that each of the three terms (spirit, soul, and body) "refers to the whole person from a particular perspective." With this understanding, the use of these terms in 1 Thessalonians and Hebrews is explained as follows:

Biblical writers multiply such terms so as to describe the completeness and fullness of human nature.  These passages do not make precise distinctions between the terms—certainly not precise enough to define metaphysical components of human existence.  Scripture typically uses "spirit" and "soul" interchangeably. (ST, 801)

Summary
In Reformed theology, the most common view is that man has two natures – body and soul.  If "spirit" and "soul" are distinguished, they are seen to be aspects of a single nature that are used to emphasize different aspects of the single immaterial part of man.


Did Jesus suffer on the Cross in all possible senses? I have read that it's more or less accepted that Jesus did suffer on the cross.
What I do not understand is whether or not He suffered all possible sufferings.

Imagine a war hero captured and tortured by the enemies. The war hero however does believe that his country will win the war and thus he does not experience all the possible sufferings for he does not experience a suffering of a man whose country has been defeated in the war.

However if Jesus does not experience a particular suffering then how Jesus can save a man who suffer such sufferings for then Jesus will not be knowing the man.

So it seems Jesus did suffer all the possible sufferings on the cross -- but then he must have suffered a suffering of someone who has discovered or wrongly felt that Christianity is false. How can that be, for Jesus surely could not believe that Christianity is false?

You're thinking too hard, and not quite straight.

Obviously Jesus didn't not experience everything. Your example is pretty convoluted but lets do an easier one. As a sinless man, there is at least one emotion Jesus didn't experience: a guilty conscience. God "made him to be sin who knew no sin", so he experienced in some fashion what it was like to be guilty, but clearly there must be a dimension in which he did not experience it the way we do.

But that's to miss the point.

The point is He suffered FAR BEYOND anything we do. He bore the weight of God's wrath against sin in a way that a Christian never will. He experienced far more senses of suffering than we do. There is left to us no sense in which he would be unable to understand what we experience.

And yet I still think that whole discussion is missing the point.

It sounds to me like you're confused about what we are saved from. Jesus doesn't save us from ourselves, our our self inflicted miseries or general sufferings. His primary work was to save us from the wrath of God. Until you understand that this is the central problem which he came to solve, none of the other stuff will quite make sense. When you get that out of the way, in having the broken fellowship between us and God restored through Christ we find that our other woes begin to heal as well -- the new creation we are is able to deal with suffering in a way that it never could before -- and as all of creation will one day be restored, the sufferings of a fallen world will likewise be wiped away with it.


What is the baptism requirement for becoming a Mennonite? Historically, Mennonites and other Anabaptists practiced adult re-baptism when a Catholic or Lutheran converted.  This got them in a lot of hot water at the time.

As a long-time member of a General Conference Mennonite Church (now the Mennonite Church USA), and a current member of a Mennonite Brethren church, my impression is that when a Catholic (or other person baptized as an infant) becomes a Mennonite, they are generally given the option of re-baptism, but it's not considered a requirement.  But admittedly, this doesn't happen very often in the U.S.

And in Mexico, where practically everyone is born Catholic (and therefore baptized as an infant), re-baptism seems quite common; but in Mexico the Catholic and protestant churches are often quite at odds with each other (Mexican Catholics think "Christian" is a dirty word).

So my question is:  What are the official rules among Mennonite churches regarding re-baptism of new members of the Mennonite church?

A few things based on my own experience in the Ontario Conference of Mennonite Brethren.

It is a matter of doctrine that only those baptized 'of the age of accountability' are considered validly baptized. Baptisms of infants are not considered valid.

However individual churches are, I believe, able to set their own rules about whether baptism is required, and for what. The norm is that baptism is required for membership; but in many Mennonite churches people can be very active participants for a long time, even serve in leadership positions, without becoming formal members, and thus without being baptized (i.e. without being rebaptized if you were baptized as an infant). That was certainly true in my case.

So in short: if you were baptized as an infant you are considered not baptized: however that may not be much of a restriction.


How do Calvinists interpret Acts 7:51 in light of the doctrine of 'irresistible grace?' In light of the doctrine of irresistable grace, how do Calvinists interpret Acts 7:51?

  Acts 7:51 (DRB) You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do you also.

Cf. Mt. 23:37.

Doesn't this imply they ought not to resist the Holy Ghost, implying both 1) one can, and they did, resist the grace of God, and 2) they had the capacity to, but refused to, comply with God?

R. C. Sproul in his book What is Reformed Theology? says that most of the conventional labels in the TULIP rubric are poorly named, including "Irresistible Grace". He prefers the label The Spirit's Effective Call, which matches the Westminster Confession's 10th chapter. So before I get to Acts 7 and the resistible graces, I'll quickly outline what the doctrine of Effectual Calling is. First from the Westminster Confession:

WCF 10.1: All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ: enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
WCF 10.2: This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.

The 'call' or 'grace' of this doctrine is specifically that of the saving grace and call to life out of death. When God calls the elect they are spiritually dead, with hearts of stone, unable to respond in faith. God must regenerate them for them to be able to respond to him in faith. And it is effective for God does not give us a heart halfway between stone and flesh, but a living heart. Sproul writes:

The call referred to in effectual calling is not the outward call of the gospel that can be heard by anyone within range of the reaching. The call referred to here is the inward call, the call that penetrates to and pierces the heart, quickening it to spiritual life. Hearing the gospel enlightens the mind, yet it does not awaken the soul until the Holy Spirit illumines and regenerates it. The move from ear to soul is made by the Holy Spirit. (p191)

One of the best Biblical images for Effectual Calling is the resurrection of Lazarus. However much Lazarus might have responded to God in faith and obedience, Jesus Christ's calling of his dead body back to life was at the same time entirely effective and entirely external to Lazarus. Lazarus's dead body did not generate a seed of life which God then grew. His dead heart did not kickstart itself, his dead lungs did not gulp down a breath which God then sent to oxygenate the rest of his body through his veins. No, he was dead and the life came from God alone. We see the same idea in Ephesians:

Ephesians 2:1-5 (NIV): As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

This calling is called "Irresistible Grace" because the new life Christians are given is irresistible in the same way that we cannot will our hearts to stop beating, or make ourselves hold our breaths forever without breathing. Once God has made us physically alive we cannot help but live. Once God has made us spiritually alive we cannot help but spiritually live, growing closer to God, learning obedience to his will, and carrying out the good works he has prepared for us. Or consider the miracles when Jesus restored the sight of the blind: blind people cannot restore their own sight, but once it has been restored to them they cannot help but see and take in the light around them. Yes we cooperate with his will in faith, but it comes after the regeneration that made dead things into the living children of God.

So what of the resistible graces, calls, and works of the Holy Spirit? The Reformed doctrine of Irresistible Grace is strictly only about the work of the Spirit to bring life to dead people. But the Spirit has many other works, God has many other calls, and he gives us many other graces. All of these can be resisted to various extents:

There is the grace of creation and providence given to all things in this universe.
There is the work of the Spirit in our consciences convicting us of our sin and calling us away from it.
There is the call of God in the Hebrew scriptures to love him and obey his law.
There is the call of the incarnate Son of God as he lived amongst his people and preached the Kingdom of God.
There is the external call of the gospel preached by the church.

In his sermon in Acts 7 Stephen reminded the Jews of their history alongside God. Just as the patriarchs resisted the God's invitation to have faith despite so many difficult circumstances, and just as the Israelites of the Exodus resisted God's instruction during their wanderings in the wilderness, so too the Jews of Jesus's time resisted his preaching, and then the preaching of the Apostles and early church. Stephen called them to repent of their resistance and to submit to the gospel and the witness of the Holy Spirit.
And even amongst the Jews of the Sanhedrin who executed Stephen, there was (at least) one who God had chosen. But while Saul tried his hardest to resist the work of the Spirit in the preaching of the church, very soon after God would effectually call Saul to life and faith. When Christ revealed the truth of himself to Saul, Saul became incapable of denying that truth. Like a child who realises for the first time that their parents are fallible, when God reveals himself to us the reality of who God is becomes one of our facts. It was the paradigm shift of Saul's life; he had seen reality and his life was indelibly changed.
In the conversion of Saul we see what is true for all Christians: that God calls to life dead souls that cannot bring themselves to love God or have faith in him. This is true for all of us, even though most of us subjectively experience the call of God, the regeneration of the Spirit, and the growing seeds of our faith concurrently.


Why do Protestants hold "prayer services"? Why do Protestants hold "prayer services"? Since "prayer service" is an English term, are there equivalents in other languages? When did this service start? How did it get started? How are "prayer services" different from the "worship services" on Sundays or "Masses" on every day of the week?

From a Fundamentalist Pentecostal pov, "Prayer Services" are usually geared towards corporate prayer and petitions of God.
These prayer(s) can be very long (over 30mins each).  If any hymns are sung or preaching is preached, it is to prepare the church (congregation) for prayer.
These prayers can be in support of a specific cause; i.e. imprisoned missionaries, warring countries, illness, etc.
This is different from "regular worship services" where the focus is preaching/teaching.
**EDIT:
In the quest to find Biblical standing for "Prayer Meetings", it doesn't seem like there any passages of Jesus explicitly being part of a "prayer meeting", since majority of the time he spent that time alone with God and sometimes invite a few to support Him.
Here are the passages that talk about him being alone:

Luke 15:16 (NASB)
But Jesus Himself would often slip away to the wilderness and pray.
Luke 22:41 (NASB)
And He withdrew from them about a stone’s throw, and He knelt down and began to pray
Mark 1:35 (NASB)
In the early morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house, and went away to a secluded place, and was praying there.
Matthew 14:23 (NASB)
After He had sent the crowds away, He went up on the mountain by Himself to pray; and when it was evening, He was there alone.
Luke 6:12 (NASB)
It was at this time that He went off to the mountain to pray, and He spent the whole night in prayer to God

Christ Himself advocates that we pray in isolation:

Matthew 6:6 (NASB)
But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

It's possible that the Apostles congregated for prayer:

Acts 1:12-14 (NASB)
Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is
near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away. When they had entered
the city, they went up to the upper room where they were staying; that
is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas,
Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the
Zealot, and Judas the son of James. These all with one mind were
continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and
Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

Other followers of Christ praying together for a cause

Acts 12:12 (NASB)
And when he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who was also called Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying.

Summary of the Biblical references
Although I've been unable to find passages that explicitly talk about Jesus praying with His disciples, we do find the it was done by the early church.


Does the Old Testament anywhere imply that the Law of Moses may be abrogated? I am wondering if there are any statements in the Old Testament which either:

A) Foretell  a time when the Law of Moses will be abrogated (in the way Christ does in the NT)

or

B) States that some of the Laws within Deuteronomy were given for the 'Hardness of Heart', as Jesus claims - or some paraphrase of that idea.

Notes: I am Catholic, so I'll accept any references coming from Deuterocanonical books. The Laws I am most concerned about are the usual controversial ones which seem to our modern outlook violent or less than perfect.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 English Standard Version (ESV)

  The New Covenant

  31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a
  new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not
  like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I
  took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my
  covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the
  Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of
  Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within
  them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God,
  and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his
  neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall
  all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the
  Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin
  no more.”

This does not explicitly say which old laws and regulations will be done away with, but it promises a change. The NT book of Hebrews goes into detail about how a change in covenant and in priesthood necessitates a change in religious rules and laws.


What is the thesis of the church towards asexuality? What is the position of the Church on asexuals?

An asexual is a person who does not experience sexual attraction towards any person, thus does not desire to have sex.

Asexuality is distinct from abstention from sexual activity and from celibacy,  which are behavioral and generally motivated by factors such as an individual's personal or religious beliefs.

An answer from the Church tradition is welcome.

Does the Bible mention anything about asexuality? The church? Jesus himself? Is asexuality a sin and is it considered the same as homosexuality?

Plus one for a decent, albeit unusual, question.

After reading your question for the first time, I thought immediately of Jesus' words to his disciples in the context of His teaching on divorce:

  "'For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.  He who is able to accept this, let him accept it'" (Matthew 19:12 NASB, Updated Edition).

Compare Jesus' words with Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 7:1-9, where the apostle says, in effect, it is better to be single than to marry, but

  "each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that" (7:7b).

Combine these two teachings with other teachings throughout the Scripture, which for brevity's sake I'll not cite, and the message is clear:

Marriage is good and right and proper, and it is better to marry than to burn with lust and be tempted into sin by Satan because of a lack of self-control.
Singleness is good and right and proper, whether a person never marries or a person marries and is divorced, but then decides not to re-marry.  Each person has his or her gift from God, so there is no hard and fast rule as to whether to marry or not to marry.
Neither marriage nor singleness is superior.  As Constable has noted, ". . . neither Jesus nor the apostles viewed celibacy as an intrinsically holier state than marriage (1 Tim. 4:1-3; Heb. 13:4; cf. 1 Cor. 9:5). They viewed it as a special calling that God has given some of His servants so they can be more useful in His service."
A eunuch can be a eunuch in the flesh (i.e., he is castrated), but he can also be a eunuch in spirit, and for the sake of the kingdom decides to remain single.  If he is so gifted, that is the sensible thing to do.  Married life has many distractions and complications that the single life does not, whether you are a single man or or a single woman!  A woman, too, needs to be guided by her "gift" in this regard, and there is nothing inherently bad about choosing to marry or inherently good about choosing not to marry.

The number of Christians who are truly asexual is probably very small indeed.  The number of Christians who have a normal sex drive--neither weak nor strong-- but decide in effect to put their sexuality on hold for the sake of the kingdom is probably a little higher.  This is not to say they will never be tempted.  Moreover, in light of the Bible's silence on  masturbation, I am of the opinion that occasional, private, individual masturbation is understandable for these gifted believers and does not mean they should necessarily reconsider their calling.

The number of Christians is likely very large, if it does not in fact constitute the vast majority of adult Christians worldwide, who have a normal sex drive (albeit of individually different strengths) and who neither desire nor have the gift to be single.

In conclusion, God has a wonderful plan for all His children's lives, whether that plan involves marriage, singleness, or even the pain associated with divorce, remarriage, or widowhood.  The key is for us to function within the parameters of our giftedness, to do so in the strength and joy of the Lord, and to be content in all circumstances (Philippians 4:11-13), because as Paul said,

  "I can do all things through Him who strengthens me" (v.13).


How has apostolic succession been "unbroken" in the wake of depositions, antipopes, immorality, and simony? In studying the history of the papacy one discovers all sorts of events that are interesting when considered in the context of apostolic succession from St. Peter until today, including, but not limited to:

Instances of popes being involuntarily deposed by conquering sovereigns and replaced with one sympathetic to that conqueror.
Instances of contention over the papacy by two or even three popes simultaneously, accompanied by multiple colleges of cardinals and bishoprics.
Instances of nepotism and dynastic possession of the papacy by aristocracy and politicians.
Instances of popes engaging in orgies, conspiracies, accepting bribes, fathering children, and even committing murder.
Instances of the papal office being sold.

Is the nature of apostolic succession meant to be an unbroken succession of valid popes? How does the Catholic Church address these events and the manner of succession when making the claim (from New Advent):

  The fact is indisputable: the Bishops of Rome took over Peter's Chair and Peter's office of continuing the work of Christ. To be in continuity with the Church founded by Christ affiliation to the See of Peter is necessary, for, as a matter of history, there is no other Church linked to any other Apostle by an unbroken chain of successors.

Apostolic succession and Papal succession are not one and the same.

Is the nature of apostolic succession meant to be an unbroken succession of valid popes?

No. Rather the nature of apostolic succession is meant to be an unbroken succession of valid bishops.

Not just the pope, but all Catholic bishops have unbroken apostolic succession. In other words, for a person to become a bishop (even the bishop of Rome - aka pope), he has to be consecrated (Laying on of hands) by another a validly consecrated bishop. Who in turn should have been validly consecrated by another validly consecrated bishop...... If we keep backtracking like this, we will end up with one of the thirteen apostles (The Twelve + Paul). This is considered to be unbroken line of apostolic succession.

Popes might validly succeed each other if and only if they have proper apostolic succession (i.e they are validly consecrated bishops). This is why Stephen II is not considered a pope.

The quote you have mentioned talks about continuity in the see of peter. That is the continuity in papal succession. In other words, there is no time in history of papacy where the see of peter (or the post of the pope) is deserted with no claimants and no conclave was held to elect his successor. Note that the see could be vacant, but during that time the conclave could be taking place. This is what is called unbroken line of successors of Peter.

Instances of popes being involuntarily deposed

New popes are not considered valid unless the previous pope submits to his authority. (As in deposing of Pope John XII and Pope Leo VIII's invalid first election)

Instances of contention over the papacy by two or even three popes simultaneously

Even though at the time when this was happening, it was unclear as to who is the legitimate successor, we can be sure that at least one of them was legitimate. In other words, the see of peter was not vacant. (Retrospectively we can determine the legitimate successor.)

Instances of nepotism and dynastic possession ... popes engaging in orgies, conspiracies, accepting bribes ....

Sinfulness of the person holding the office does not invalidate the office itself.

Instances of the papal office being sold.

If a reigning pope resigns for money, it is a sin (Simony). Like all sins this is also a voluntary act. Hence he will cease to be pope.


Can Christians be demon possessed? Can somebody who is a born-again, saved Christian through faith in Jesus Christ be possessed, controlled, or otherwise manipulated by the devil, demons or any other spiritual force of evil? Are there specific limits in place when it comes to Christians that are not in effect for the rest of the world?

 Note: this is a subquestion of whether demon possession itself is legitimate but a significant issue on it's own.

Nowhere in the Bible is a Christian demon possessed.

I heard someone say that a Christian cannot be demon possessed because they are possessed (filled) with The Holy Spirit.

Since we don't appear to have any Biblical reference, I think that's that best answer we can give (unless anyone had a clear counter example).


Do Mormons practice "soaking," and is it an officially sanctioned activity? I recently became aware of the concept of soaking, as an "alternative" to sexual intercourse, which is allegedly practiced by certain Mormons, as a moral way to express one's premarital desire for sexual activity without "really" having sex.

My questions are:

Is this really practiced by Mormons?
Why is "motionless sex" somehow seen as more moral than the full thing?
Is this sanctioned by the Mormon church, or anyone else in a presumed position of authority?
And if so, on what grounds is this permissible while "real" sex is not?

College Students Looking for Loopholes...

I would not be surprised if this was practiced by some students at BYU. But if it has happened, then it is a misbehaviour amongst select groups of naive students, it is most certainly not a church practice, as it is a clear violation of the law of Chastity. BYU has a very strict code of conduct, which essentially states, "If you fornicate, you will get kicked out of School."

From the BYU Undergraduate Catalogue:

  Honor Code Statement

  We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men. . . . If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or
  praiseworthy, we seek after these things (Thirteenth Article of
  Faith).

  As a matter of personal commitment, faculty, administration, staff,
  and students of Brigham Young University, Brigham Young
  University—Hawaii, Brigham Young University—Idaho, and LDS Business
  College seek to demonstrate in daily living on and off campus
  those moral virtues encompassed in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and
  will

  Be honest
  Live a chaste and virtuous life   Obey the law and all campus policies   Use clean language   Respect others   Abstain from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, tea, coffee, and
  substance abuse   Participate regularly in church services   Observe the Dress and Grooming Standards   Encourage others
  in their commitment to comply with the Honor Code

  Conduct

  All students are required to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the Honor Code. In addition, students may not
  influence or seek to influence others to engage in behavior
  inconsistent with the Honor Code.

  Students must abstain from the use of alcohol, tobacco, and illegal
  substances and from the intentional misuse or abuse of any substance.
  Sexual misconduct; obscene or indecent conduct or expressions;
  disorderly or disruptive conduct; participation in gambling
  activities; involvement with pornographic, erotic, indecent, or
  offensive material; and any other conduct or action inconsistent with
  the principles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and
  the Honor Code is not permitted.
  Violations of the Honor Code may result in actions up to and including separation from
  the university.

In an attempt to avoid expulsion, and church discipline, some students have tried to find a loophole in the honor code.

This idea of "soaking" is not the first unusual thing I've heard come out of BYU. A few years back there were supposedly a series of excommunications because some BYU kids were allegedly eloping to Vegas, getting legally married in one of those drive-thru chapels, having a quick honeymoon weekend, then getting the marriage annulled before going back to class on Monday. Their theory was, they were married when they were having sex, so it wasn't adultery. They tried to pull a fast one on the church with a technicality.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not sanction ANY form of sexual intercourse outside of the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman.

See Gospel Topics: Chastity

COMPLETE fidelity in thoughts, words and actions is the policy of the church, anything else is the vain attempt of a sinner trying to avoid accountability.

These students ignorantly assume that they can beat the system by adhering to the letter of the law, assuming that the courts in heaven emulate courts of men. God's justice invokes the spirit of the law, there are no loopholes.


How did Paul know so much about Melchizedek? The Old Testament has 3 verses on the subject. 2 in Genesis 14:18 and 19 and Psalms 110:14. That's all. Yet Paul has given a surprising description of Melchizedek, the complete chapter of Hebrews 7 is devoted to the subject.

The writer of Hebrews approached the subject of Melchizedek through a combination of different avenues.

1) What’s listed explicitly in the text, through both direct information from scripture (the King of Salem/Peace), and through translation of his name (King of Righteousness).

2) The way Melchizedek acted, playing the part of a priest by blessing God’s people.

3) The way Melchizedek was treated, Abraham giving him a tithe indicating his superiority to Abraham.

4) The reference to the “Priestly Order of Melchizedek” in the Psalms.

Taking the above into account, The writer of Hebrews is anticipating the objection to Jesus’ priesthood on the grounds of Him being from the line of Judah, not Levi. The writer is pointing to this “other order” that wasn’t from the line of Levi (because Levi was from Abraham, and Melchizedek is clearly outside of the line of Abraham).

The author develops this point further by both literary reference and literary license. Because the character of Melchizedek just appeared and disappeared in the Torah, it’s “as if” he didn’t have a beginning or end, “as if” his priestly order has always been. Because Abraham tithed to Melchizedek and was blessed, and because the superior always blesses the inferior, then logically the priestly order of Melchizedek must be greater than the priestly order of Levi (Melchizedek > Abraham > Levi).

The writer of Hebrews didn’t have any special knowledge of Melchizedek, he just expounded on the available information as the Holy Spirit led him, both through his own understanding and the clear messianic nature of Psalm 110, which is referring to Jesus the Messiah.


Why don't priests give Holy Communion to everyone at Mass? Today I went to a Catholic Church and attended the mass then at communion time, priest asked us all to receive Communion (white, rounded hosts), but when I went there he spoke something very slowly and I did not listen properly, I asked him to repeat he did not repeat and was told that I could not receive Communion.

Please explain the case. Was the priest rude, or is there any special rule in Catholic Church for receiving Communion?

Why don't priests give bread to everyone at mass?

Priests are normally on their toes at all Masses on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. The reason is quite simply. Many non-Catholics show up and many Catholics who are not properly disposed to receive Communion show up. In order to receive Communion in a Catholic Church, one must be Catholic and a practicing Catholic at that. In other words, a Catholic must be in the state of grace before receiving Holy Communion.

It has been decades now that I have noticed that priests have made an announcement just before the reception of Communion of the requirements needed to receive Our Lord in the Sacred Host. Priests are not being rude in doing so, they are simply, a matter of fact like, doing their duty so to speak!

One a simple note, Catholic must fast for one hour before receiving Holy Communion and more follows.

What does Canon Law say in this matter?

  Can.  919 §1. A person who is to receive the Most Holy Eucharist is to abstain for at least one hour before holy communion from any food and drink, except for only water and medicine.

  Can.  915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

  Can.  914 It is primarily the duty of parents and those who take the place of parents, as well as the duty of pastors, to take care that children who have reached the use of reason are prepared properly and, after they have made sacramental confession, are refreshed with this divine food as soon as possible. It is for the pastor to exercise vigilance so that children who have not attained the use of reason or whom he judges are not sufficiently disposed do not approach holy communion.

Non-Catholics Receiving Communion

  The guidelines for receiving Communion, which are issued by the U.S. bishops and published in many missalettes, explain, “Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law.”

  Scripture is clear that partaking of the Eucharist is among the highest signs of Christian unity: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). For this reason, it is normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion, for to do so would be to proclaim a unity to exist that, regrettably, does not.

  Another reason that many non-Catholics may not ordinarily receive Communion is for their own protection, since many reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Scripture warns that it is very dangerous for one not believing in the Real Presence to receive Communion: “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Cor. 11:29).

Addendum:

At one time, it was somewhat common practice to take home some ”Blessed Bread”. These blessed breads were generally associated with a  particular diocese or saints.

  The little loaves or cakes of bread which received a special benediction and were then sent by bishops and priests to others, as gifts in sign of fraternal affection and ecclesiastical communion were also called eulogiae. Persons to whom the eulogia was refused were considered outside the communion of the faithful, and thus bishops sometimes sent it to an excommunicated person to indicate that the censure had been removed. Later, when the faithful no longer furnished the altar-bread, a custom arose of bringing bread to the church for the special purpose of having it blessed and distributed among those present as token of mutual love and union, and this custom still exists in the Western Church, especially in France. This blessed bread was called panis benedictus, panis lustratus, panis lustralis, and is now known in France as pain bénit. It differs from the eulogia mentioned above, because it is not a part of the oblation from which the particle to be consecrated in the Mass is selected, but rather is common bread which receives a special benediction. In many places it is the custom for each family in turn to present the bread on Sundays and feast days, while in other places only the wealthier families furnish it. Generally the bread is presented with some solemnity at the Offertory of the parochial Mass, and the priest blesses it before the Oblation of the Host and Chalice, but different customs exist in different dioceses. The prayer ordinarily used for the blessing is the first or second: benedictio panis printed in the Roman missal and ritual. The faithful were exhorted to partake of it in the church, but frequently it was carried home. This blessed bread is a sacramental, which should excite Christians to practice especially the virtues of charity, and unity of spirit, and which brings blessings to those who partake of it with due devotion. The Church, when blessing it, prays that those who eat it may receive health both of soul and body: "ut omnes ex eo gustantes inde corporis et animae percipant sanitatem"; "ut sit omnibus sumentibus salus mentis et corporis". In some instances the pain bénit was used not only with superstitious intent, and its virtues exaggerated beyond measure, but also for profane purposes. This usage was brought from France to Canada, and was practised chiefly in the province of Quebec. There the pain bénit had blessed immediately after the Asperges, and then distributed to those who assisted at high Mass. The parishioners furnished it in turn, and vied with one another in presenting as rich and fine a pain bénit as possible, until finally the bishops, seeing that it entailed too much expense upon the poor circumstances, prohibited it. Within the last twenty-five and thirty years the custom has almost entirely disappeared.

  In the present Roman ritual there are six blessings for bread. Two of these are entitled simply benedictio panis, and as mentioned above, are often used for blessing the panis benit. The third entitled benedictio panis et placentarum (blessing of bread and cakes), is found in the appendix among the blessings which are not reserved. The other three are approved for particular localities, and are special blessings given under the invocation of certain saints, usually on their feast days, in order to gain special favours through their intercession. The first, approved for the Archdiocese of Cologne, is a blessing of bread, water, and salt given under the invocation of St. Hubert; the second, approved for the Diocese of Bois-le-Duc, is a blessing of bread and water under the invocation of St. Machutus, and the third, for the Diocese of Urgel, is a blessing of bread, wine, water, and fruit to be used on the feast of St. Blasius. Some other places have local of blessing bread on certain feast days, as for instance on the feasts of St. Genevieve, of St. Nicholas of Tolentino and others. - Liturgical Use of Bread