What is the biblical basis for baptism by sprinkling? As noted in the other question, there are two modes of water baptism of which I am familiar--immersion and sprinkling. As far as I know Catholics practice sprinkling along with many Protestant traditions, although many other Protestant traditions practice immersion.

What is the biblical basis for baptism by sprinkling according to those who have a literal interpretation of the Bible?

There seems to be a basis for sprinkling.

Ezekiel 36:25-27. " I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will become clean; I will cleanse you from all your uncleanness and from all your disgusting idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit inside you. I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put my spirit inside you, and I will cause you to walk in my regulations, and you will observe and carry out my judicial decisions."


How do Roman Catholics reconcile Acts 15:20 with transubstantiation? I'm curious how a Roman Catholic Christian would defend the practice of transubstantiation in light of Acts 15:20 which states that Christians are "to abstain...from blood" (τοῦ ἀπέχεσθαι ἀπό...τοῦ αἵματος ).

  But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

(Not that I need to post this disclaimer, but I do believe in transubstantiation.)

Transubstantiation for a Catholic is from the philosophic concept of substance and accidents which could perhaps be phrased reality and appearance.  The substance is the reality of the thing, in this case bread or wine and the accidents is what it appears to be.  During the consecration, each element (bread and wine) are changed in substance while the accidents remain the same so, for example, the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord really and truly in the sacrament while still looking, smelling and tasting like wine.

The question equates the changed wine with the substance & accidents of blood which is not the case here.  The blood referred to here is both blood in accidents and substance.  While the Greek αἷμα can refer to literal blood or those things that refer to blood such as the blood of grapes (eSword G129, Thayers & Strong's), one must take this commentary reference into account:

  20. (in part)... The four classes (also v28; 21:25) seem to be four of the things proscribed by Lev 17-18 for aliens residing in Israel: meat offered to idols, the eating of blood and of strangled animals (not ritually slaughtered) and intercourse with close kin (see Lev 17:8-9, 10-12, 15 [Exod 22:31]; 18:6-18). 21. Supporting the four clauses (gar) is their recognition factor, based on the universal Torah instruction.
  The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, pg 752

This reference to Leviticus is not a sacramental but a literal reference, hence requiring the blood (αἷμα) referred to in the passage to be meant literally as blood and not in some other way, hence there is no contradiction as it might appear on the surface.

This is a good article from the old Catholic Encyclopedia that discusses transubstantiation http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3.


Do Catholics believe that God is actively "fighting" Satan? Do Catholics believe that God is actively "fighting" Satan? Or do they believe that Satan is a "tempter" who only tries to corrupt humans?

I vaguely recall stories from the Old Testament when God fought Satan directly, but I wasn't sure if Catholics believed that God was still actively fighting Satan.

God through Jesus Christ or God-made-man Jesus Christ is the devil's conqueror

  CCC 539 The evangelists indicate the salvific meaning of this
  mysterious event: Jesus is the new Adam who remained faithful just
  where the first Adam had given in to temptation. Jesus fulfills
  Israel's vocation perfectly: in contrast to those who had once
  provoked God during forty years in the desert, Christ reveals himself
  as God's Servant, totally obedient to the divine will. In this, Jesus
  is the devil's conqueror: he "binds the strong man" to take back his
  plunder.1 Jesus' victory over the tempter in the desert
  anticipates victory at the Passion, the supreme act of obedience of
  his filial love for the Father.

  1. Cf. Ps 95:10; Mk 3:27

The LORD achieves his definitive victory when he come again. Until then, the war and its battles continue

  CCC 2853 Victory over the "prince of this world"2 was won
  once for all at the Hour when Jesus freely gave himself up to death to
  give us his life. This is the judgment of this world, and the prince
  of this world is "cast out."3 "He pursued the
  woman"4 but had no hold on her: the new Eve, "full of
  grace" of the Holy Spirit, is preserved from sin and the corruption of
  death (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Most Holy
  Mother of God, Mary, ever virgin). "Then the dragon was angry with the
  woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her
  offspring."5 Therefore the Spirit and the Church pray:
  "Come, Lord Jesus,"6 since his coming will deliver us from
  the Evil One.

  2. Jn 14:30.
  3. Jn 12:31; Rev 12:10.
  4. Rev 12:13-16.
  5. Rev 12:17.
  6. Rev 22:17,20.

Please see also CCC 677.


What is the take of Catholic Church on the dream of Pilate's wife? At Matthew 27: 19 we see the advice given to Pilate by his wife during the trial of Jesus:

  While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, “Have nothing to do with that innocent man, for today I have suffered a great deal because of a dream about him.

Had Pilate acceeded to the advice his wife, Jesus could not have accomplished His Mission. Was it possible that the dream of Pilate's wife had been induced by The Enemy?  What is the take of Catholic Church on the dream of Pilate's wife?

There are a few speculations on what exactly this verse means. St. Thomas Aquinas compiled gospel commentaries of Church fathers in the Catena Aurea. I have copied the relevant comments from the Catena below:

  Raban.: It is to be noted, that the bench (tribunal) is the seat of the judge, the throne (solium) of the king, the chair (cathedra) of the master. In visions and dreams the wife of a Gentile understood what the Jews when awake would neither believe nor understand.
  Jerome: Observe also that visions are often vouchsafed by God to the Gentiles, and that the confession of Pilate and his wife that the Lord was innocent is a testimony of the Gentile people.

  Chrys.: But why did Pilate himself not see this vision? Because his
  wife was more worthy; or because if Pilate had seen it, he would not
  have had equal credit, or perhaps would not have told it; wherefore it
  is provided by God that his wife should see it, and thus it be made
  manifest to all. And she not merely sees it, but "suffers many things
  because of him," so that sympathy with his wife would make the husband
  more slack to put Him to death. And the time agreed well, for it was
  the same night that she saw it.

  Chrys., Hom. iii, in Caen. Dom.: Thus then the judge terrified through
  his wife, and that he might not consent in the judgment to the
  accusation of the Jews, himself endured judgment in the affliction of
  his wife; the judge is judged, and tortured before he tortures.

  Raban.: Or otherwise; The devil now at last understanding that he
  should lose his trophies through Christ, as be had at the first
  brought in [p. 942] death by a woman, so by a woman he would deliver
  Christ out of the hands of His enemies, lest through His death he
  should lose the sovereignty of death.

  Chrys.: But none of the foregoing things moved Christ's enemies,
  because envy had altogether blinded them, and of their own wickedness
  they corrupt the people, for they "persuaded the people that they
  should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus."

  Gloss., non occ.: Pilate is said to make this answer, "Whether of the
  twain will ye that I release unto you?" either to the message of his
  wife, or the petition of the people, with whom it was a custom to ask
  such release on the feast-day.


Is there any theological reason that Eastern Orthodox clergy tend to maintain long beards? I have minimal familiarity with the Eastern Orthodox tradition, but I can typically guess by seeing a photo that a person is an Eastern Orthodox clergyman.

It's a tradition derived from two sources: first of all, Jesus had long beard - second, from Leviticus 19:27 "You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard"

However, it's not a prescription for ortodox clergy to do that: it's only a (widely observed) tradition
Note that catholic clergy usually not maintain long beards, for a different tradition: Romans used to shave their beards, and to consider men with long beards as uncivilized (barbarians).
Anyway, there is no prescription about beards (exept for some monks)


Is there any biblical basis for the Church to depict Jesus as a European or some other ethnic race? The reason I ask is that the Most Rev Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury (Anglican Church of England) was recently interviewed on BBC Radio 4’s ‘Today’ programme and said that in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests, the way the Western church portrays Jesus needs to be thought about again.  He suggested that a Middle Eastern looking Jesus is the most accurate.
The Daily Telegraph (Saturday 27 June 2020) reported that a spokesman for Westminster Abbey said: “The Dean and Chapter of Westminster have begun a conversation about the Abbey’s memorials and how we can better reflect the attitudes of our time.”
A photograph of the pulpit of Canterbury Cathedral showed a distinctly European looking Christ nailed to a cross with a very European looking Mary and Apostle John on either side of him.
For Jesus to be accepted by the society into which he was born, he would have looked like them.  The Jewish community in which Jesus grew up did not doubt that Jesus was the son of Joseph, the carpenter:

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son?  Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us?” (Matthew 13:55)

Had Jesus been born with white skin, blond or light brown hair and blue eyes, eyebrows might have been raised!
Is there any biblical basis for the Western Church (Catholic or Protestant) to depict Jesus as a European or some other ethnic race?

Is there any biblical basis for Churches in the West (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican or Protestant) to depict Jesus as European or some other ethnic race?
It seems to a certain point that men tend to maintain different depictions of Jesus, sometimes reflecting local racial characteristics, as do the Catholic and Orthodox depictions. As to whether there is any Scriptural references for depicting Jesus as a European is doubtful. There could be an indirect passage in Scriptures for maintaining he was of dark complexion (black) [I am black but beautiful, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Cedar, as the curtains of Solomon. (Song of Solomon 1:4)], but I will get to that further on.

Certain local traditions have maintained different depictions, sometimes reflecting local racial characteristics, as do the Catholic and Orthodox depictions. The Coptic Church of Egypt separated in the 5th century, and has a distinctive depiction of Jesus, consistent with Coptic art. The Ethiopian Church, also Coptic, developed on Coptic traditions, but shows Jesus and all Biblical figures with the Ethiopian appearance of its members. Other traditions in Asia and elsewhere also show the race of Jesus as that of the local population (see Chinese picture in the gallery below). In modern times such variation has become more common, but images following the traditional depiction in both physical appearance and clothing are still dominant, perhaps surprisingly so. In Europe, local ethnic tendencies in depictions of Jesus can be seen, for example in Spanish, German, or Early Netherlandish painting, but almost always surrounding figures are still more strongly characterised. For example, the Virgin Mary, after the vision reported by Bridget of Sweden, was often shown with blonde hair, but Christ's is very rarely paler than a light brown.

An 18th-century Ethiopian image of Jesus
Images of Jesus tend to show ethnic characteristics similar to those of the culture in which the image has been created. Beliefs that certain images are historically authentic, or have acquired an authoritative status from Church tradition, remain powerful among some of the faithful, in Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Roman Catholicism. The Shroud of Turin is now the best-known example, though the Image of Edessa and the Veil of Veronica were better known in medieval times. - Depiction of Jesus

As I have already mentioned, there is not direct biblical basis for the West to depict Jesus as being European in their art. It is both a cultural sentimentality and a local tradition.
Jesus looked like a Roman to the Romans.

Jesus without a beard in the Catacombs of Rome. Third-century fresco from the Catacomb of Callixtus of Christ as the Good Shepherd.

Reconstruction of the Chinese Nestorian painting of Jesus Christ, 9th century.
Depicting Jesus and Mary as being Caucasian in European communities is by far not a universal tradition. Although not based on biblical proofs, it does remain a solid tradition in the West.
In fact, the term Black Madonna or Black Virgin tends to refer to statues or paintings in Western Christendom of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Infant Jesus, where both figures are depicted as black.

The term Black Madonna or Black Virgin tends to refer to statues or paintings in Western Christendom of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Infant Jesus, where both figures are depicted as black. The Black Madonna can be found both in Catholic and Orthodox countries.
The paintings are usually icons which are Byzantine in origin or style, some made in 13th- or 14th-century Italy, others are older and from the Middle East, Caucasus or Africa, mainly Egypt and Ethiopia. Statues are often made of wood but occasionally made of stone, painted and up to 75 cm (30 in) tall. They fall into two main groups: free-standing upright figures or seated figures on a throne. There are about 400–500 Black Madonnas in Europe, depending on how they are classified. There are at least 180 Vierges Noires in Southern France alone, and there are hundreds of non-medieval copies as well. Some are in museums, but most are in churches or shrines and are venerated by believers. Some are associated with miracles and attract substantial numbers of pilgrims.
Black Madonnas come in different forms, and the speculations (mostly by white scholars) behind the reason for the dark hue of each individual icon or statue vary greatly and are not without controversy. Though some Madonnas were originally black or brown when they were made, others have simply turned darker due to factors like ageing or candle smoke. The Jung scholar, Ean Begg, has conducted a study into the potential pagan origins of the cult of the black madonna and child. Another speculated cause for the dark-skinned depiction is due to pre-Christian deities being re-envisioned as the Madonna and child.
Studies and research
Research into the Black Madonna phenomenon is limited due to a wide consensus among (white) scholars that the dark-skinned aspect was unintentional. Begg has a different view: he links the recurring refrain from the Song of Solomon, ‘I am black, but I am beautiful’ to the Queen of Sheba. Recently, however, interest in this subject has gathered more momentum.
Important early studies of dark-skinned holy images in France were by Camille Flammarion (1888), Marie Durand-Lefebvre (1937), Emile Saillens (1945), and Jacques Huynen (1972). The first notable study of the origin and meaning of the Black Madonnas in English appears to have been presented by Leonard Moss at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on December 28, 1952. Moss broke the images into three categories: (1) dark brown or black Madonnas with physiognomy and skin pigmentation matching that of the indigenous population; (2) various art forms that have turned black as a result of certain physical factors such as deterioration of lead-based pigments, accumulated smoke from the use of votive candles, and accumulation of grime over the ages, and (3) residual category with no ready explanation. -Black Madonna (Wikipedia)

Moreover Mary has been associated with the Old Testament text from the Song of Songs which reads:

I am black, but beautiful.
Nigra sum, sed formosa. (Song of Songs 1:5)
These lyrics were commonly sung as a short refrain (called an ‘antiphon‘) in the feasts of the Virgin. But despite the association of the Mary with the ‘nigra sed formosa’ woman of the Song of Songs in Liturgy, I do not know of any depiction of the Virgin Mary as dark skinned in stained glass, or, for that matter, in any manuscript illuminations, wall paintings or embroidery.
In only two media in medieval art does the Virgin appear, at least on the face of it, to have been depicted with dark skin: wooden statues common in Western Europe, especially in France from the twelfth century onwards, and later, icon-like paintings to the east.

The Virgin of Montserrat, housed at the monastery of Santa Maria de Montserrat, Spain.
It is clear that over the course of the Middle Ages, there was a developing tradition of depicting blackness in medieval European art. But why, if the Virgin Mary was associated with the ‘nigra sum sed formosa’ text, did medieval artists not depict her as a sub-Saharan African woman?  Was it because dark-skinned people were unknown to the artists? -  The Virgin Mary: Beautiful and Black?


What is the difference between justification and sanctification? Christians use the terms justification and sanctification a lot, but it's not always clear where one concept leaves off and the other picks up.

What do Protestants generally say is the difference between these two ideas? What is the Biblical justification* for having two distinct terms?

* Sorry, I couldn't help myself

Justification - being declared perfect, a single act of Grace by God to the repentant sinner
Sanctification - the process of being made perfect, a day by day activity of God and the Christian working in partnership
Glorification - becoming perfect, the moment when the struggle is over, heaven is entered and God completes his masterpiece: You.

Relevant Biblical verse:

Hebrews 12:2 emphasis mine
Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

author means He started and continued it
perfecter means He finished it


Did Adam and Eve's Progeny Commit Incest? I have a multi-part question.

Did Adam and Eve's Progeny Commit Incest?

Genesis, Chapter 4 tells us about Cain and Abel.
Genesis, Chapter 5 tells us about Seth and "other sons and daughters".

I highly doubt that our species began with many acts of incest (not just for religious/legal/moral reasons but biological reasons as well), so how did humanity continue?

As a Christian, am I obliged to accept one of the following?

Adam and Eve's progeny mated with descendants from another lineage that the Bible (through no apparent malice) failed to describe.
The story of Adam and Eve is just that - A story. It is a story that was passed down by way of oral tradition. It was never meant to describe actual historical events.

There is a third option -

The prohibition on incest didn't come about until the covenant in Leviticus & Deuteronomy, and to accuse Cain, Abel, and Seth of incest is to accuse them ex post facto.

As an aside, a Young Earth Creationist would date the Creation to 4004 BC, and the Exodus (and  hence the Covenant) to about 1440BC.  As such, you would be accusing them of a crime that wasn't mandated for nearly 2600 years.

If you want to say, "but surely the law goes back further than the covenant," you get into territory of, "So when did it become a law?"  Incest is prohibited in most secular cultures today because it weakens the gene pool.  Over time, the level of closeness has gotten wider in order to ensure a wider mixing.  In modern times, a first or second cousin is off-limits.  If I remember correctly in Leviticus, immediate family was prohibited, but I believe that cousins were ok. If you follow the trajectory backwards, you'd probably arrive at a date at which it was ok even for family members to procreate together, societally speaking.

An objection has been raised worth noting:

  regardless, biology hasn't changed. legally incest wasn't "wrong" yet but humanity does not tend to survive well on inbreeding.

My response stands, however:

  Agreed that humanity doesn't tend to survive well on inbreeding, but it fares even more poorly if the first of the species refrain from procreation altogether


Do any church fathers directly connect "speaking in tongues" with anything other than existing human languages? One of the arguments made by those who believe that the gift of speaking in tongues has ceased (cessationists) is that the "tongues" spoken of in both Acts and 1 Corinthians 12–14 are "real" human languages.  For example, C. Norman Sellers, in Biblical Tongues, writes:

  The New Testament references to tongues require that we understand them as referring to real languages [...] There is sufficient scriptural evidence to prove that the tongues in 1 Corinthians are the same as those in Acts chapter 2 and refer to real languages.

Charismatics will generally reject this analysis; J. Rodman Williams, for example, argues that "it would have been pointless to speak foreign languages" at Caesarea (Acts 10:45–46) and Ephesus (Acts 19:6) in Renewal Theology (II, p214).

In light of this disagreement, I wonder – did any church fathers clearly and specifically indicate that the "speaking in tongues" of either Acts or 1 Corinthians was not a "real" human language?  Here are some clarifying parameters:

I'm interested in church fathers as typically defined – those who followed the apostles up to John of Damascus.  I'm fine with including Tertullian and Origen in this group.

From my reading I don't think any pre-Augustine authors clearly make this connection, so I'm asking about church fathers more broadly.  But writings of the early fathers would be particularly interesting.

By "clearly and specifically," I mean that the writer goes beyond the biblical text and indicates that the "tongues" were not human languages.

Charismatics might argue that the biblical text itself is clear on this point, and that therefore if a church father merely quotes the biblical text, it  indicates that he believes that "tongues" were not exclusively human language.  I want more than that.

To my knowledge, no Church Father ever connected "Speaking in Tongues" - Glossolalia - with anything other than existing human languages.

Dr. Nathan Busenitz wrote a very detailed paper comparing what the Church Fathers believed and wrote regarding glossolalia with contemporary Pentecostal beliefs.  His conclusion was that there was no evidence that any Church Fathers ever held that glossolalia involved anything other than real human language.

One of the key "proof texts" that has been cited for use of unintelligible languages while speaking in tongues is 1 Corinthians 14:14-15:

  For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is
  unfruitful.What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will
  pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing
  with the mind also.

Church Father John Chrysostom (4th cent.) clearly understood that even here, Paul was speaking of real language:

  Ask accordingly not to have the gift of tongues only, but also of
  interpretation, that thou mayest become useful unto all, and not shut
  up thy gift in thyself alone. “For if I pray in a tongue,” saith he,
  “my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.” Seest thou
  how by degrees bringing his argument to a point, he signifies that not
  to others only is such an one useless, but also to himself; if at
  least “his understanding is unfruitful?” For if a man should speak
  only in the Persian, or any other foreign tongue, and not understand
  what he saith, then of course to himself also will he be thenceforth a
  barbarian, not to another only, from not knowing the meaning of the
  sound. For there were of old many who had also a gift of prayer,
  together with a tongue; and they prayed, and the tongue spake, praying
  either in the Persian or Latin language, but their understanding knew
  not what was spoken. Wherefore also he said, “I’ll pray in a tongue,
  my spirit prayeth,” i.e., the gift which is given me and which moves
  my tongue, “but my understanding is unfruitful.”

  What then may that be which is best in itself, and doth good? And how
  ought one to act, or what request of God? To pray, “both with the
  spirit,” i.e., the gift, and “with the understanding.” Wherefore also
  he said, “I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the
  understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with
  the understanding also.” He signifieth the same thing here also, that
  both the tongue may speak, and the understanding may not be ignorant
  of the things spoken (Homilies on First Corinthians, XXXV)

Within the contemporary Orthodox Church, two prevailing beliefs regarding glossolalia are:

Glossolalia appeared at the beginning of the Church, because it was
intended as a gift to help the Apostles build the Church quickly
from disparate nationalities.  As Christianity spread throughout the
word, the need for the gift declined, and so became less prevalent
and seems to have disappeared today.
Those who utter
incomprehensible sounds and believe themselves to be "speaking in
tongues", inspired by the Holy Spirit, are victims of demonic
delusion.

"Far from being given freely and spontaneously, without man's interference - as are the true gifts of the Holy Spirit - speaking in tongues can be caused to occur quite predictably," wrote the American monk Seraphim Rose,

  ... by a regular technique of concentrated group "prayer" accompanied by
  psychologically suggestive Protestant hymns ("He comes! He comes!"),
  culminating in a "laying on of hands," and sometimes involving such
  purely physical efforts as repeating a given phrase over and over
  again, or just making sounds with the mouth. One person
  admits that, like many others, after speaking in tongues, "I often did
  mouth nonsense syllables in an effort to start the flow of
  prayer-in-tongues"; and such efforts, far from
  being discouraged, are actually advocated by Pentecostals. "Making
  sounds with the mouth is not 'speaking-in-tongues,' but it may signify
  an honest act of faith, which the Holy Spirit will honor by giving
  that person the power to speak in another language".
  Another Protestant pastor says: "The initial hurdle to speaking in
  tongues, it seems, is simply the realization that you must 'speak
  forth'...The first syllables and words may sound strange to your
  ear... They may be halting and inarticulate. You may have the thought
  that you are just making it up. But as you continue to speak in
  faith... the Spirit will shape for you a language of prayer and
  praise". A Jesuit "theologian" tells how he put
  such advice into practice: "After breakfast I felt almost physically
  drawn to the chapel where I sat down to pray. Following Jim's
  description of his own reception of the gift of tongues, I began to
  say quietly to myself "la, la, la, la." To my immense consternation
  there ensued a rapid movement of tongue and lips accompanied by a
  tremendous feeling of inner devotion".

  Hieromonk Seraphim Rose of Platina, "Charismatic Revival As a Sign of the Times"


Under a Protestant perspective what sort of ‘sacrifices’ as a symbolic priest can a believer perform within the ‘priesthood’ of all believers? In 1 Peter believers are represented as a Priesthood that 'offer spiritual sacrifices'. Assuming that they can't be for expiation as only Christ was worthy to offer his own soul for that (represented by animal blood in the OT) what sort of sacrifices are these?:

As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (ESV, 1 Peter 2:4-5)

Note: I used a technical word that seems to require a definition.
Expiation definition
Guilt is said to be expiated when it is visited with punishment falling on a substitute. Expiation is made for our sins when they are punished not in ourselves but in another who consents to stand in our room. It is that by which reconciliation is effected. Sin is thus said to be "covered" by vicarious satisfaction. The cover or lid of the ark is termed in the LXX. hilasterion, that which covered or shut out the claims and demands of the law against the sins of God's people, whereby he became "propitious" to them. The idea of vicarious expiation runs through the whole Old Testament system of sacrifices. (Bible Dictionary)

The best place to look for an answer to how Lutherans would view the 1 Peter passage on sacrifices is to look at the section on the Defense of the Augsburg Confession on sacrifice.

19] Moreover, the proximate species of sacrifice are two, and there are no more. One is the propitiatory sacrifice, i.e., a work which makes satisfaction for guilt and punishment, i.e., one that reconciles God, or appeases God's wrath, or which merits the remission of sins for others. The other species is the eucharistic sacrifice, which does not merit the remission of sins or reconciliation, but is rendered by those who have been reconciled, in order that we may give thanks or return gratitude for the remission of sins that has been received, or for other benefits received.
25] Now the rest are eucharistic sacrifices, which are called sacrifices of praise, Lev. 3:1f.; 7:11f.; Ps. 56:12f., namely, the preaching of the Gospel, faith, prayer, thanksgiving, confession, the afflictions of saints, yea, all good works of saints. These sacrifices are not satisfactions for those making them, or applicable on behalf of others, so as to merit for these, ex opere operato, the remission of sins or reconciliation. For they are made by those who have been reconciled. 26] And such are the sacrifices of the New Testament, as Peter teaches, 1 Pet. 2:5: An holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices. Spiritual sacrifices, however, are contrasted not only with those of cattle, but even with human works offered ex opere operato, because spiritual refers to the movements of the Holy Ghost in us. Paul teaches the same thing Rom. 12:1: Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable, which is your reasonable service. Reasonable service signifies, however, a service in which God is known, and apprehended by the mind, as happens in the movements of fear and trust towards God. Therefore it is opposed not only to the Levitical service, in which cattle are slain, but also to a service in which a work is imagined to be offered ex opere operato, The Epistle to the Hebrews 13:15, teaches the same thing: By Him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually; and he adds the interpretation, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name. He bids us offer praises, i.e., prayer, thanksgiving, confession, and the like. These avail not ex opere operato, but on account of faith. This is taught by the clause: By Him let us offer, i.e., by faith in Christ.


Why did God make the "Forbidden Fruit" available in Eden? If the 'Forbidden Fruit' was 'forbidden', why did God keep it in Eden?

If God had the intention of keeping Adam in Eden, why did he keep that stupid fruit there?

Why was a test necessary that was bound to be failed by Adam?

Who is the best one, other than God, to know that Adam is going to fail the test?

If God wanted Adam to be fallen, why didn't He drop Adam on the face of the earth in the first place? Why did He apply the trick? Why was that trick necessary?

A Heart Conducive to Understanding

Before addressing the question, it seems appropriate to address the proper spirit in which such answers should be sought.  There is a very important principle in Scripture which we need to remember;

  You will say to me then, “Why does [God] still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?  -Romans 9:19-20

It is inappropriate to critique God, or to accuse Him of injustice or trickery.  Furthermore, it will not lead to understanding, as the following  verse explains:

  A scoffer seeks wisdom and finds none, But knowledge is easy to one who has understanding.  -Proverbs 14:6

To learn the answers to such difficult questions, we need to seek the Lord.

  Evil men do not understand justice, But those who seek the LORD understand all things.  -Proverbs 28:5

What We Know About God

When we seek answers about the tough subjects of Scripture, it is important to start with what we know.

The first thing to recognize up front is that God is good.  Everything good was created by God, and everything created by God is good.  To say it another way, God did not (and cannot) "create evil."  (I'll answer the obvious questions in a moment.)

Secondly, it is clear from Scripture that God would do anything for His people.  He made salvation available to everyone, and He desires that everyone would be saved.  So it would be severely inappropriate to think that God would put a stumbling block before Adam, tempting him to fail - all for the purpose of personal benefit.  That doctrine is severely inconsistent with Scripture.

Defining Evil

At this point, many wonder, "If God didn't create evil, then why does evil exist?"  I think we need to be careful with semantics here.  Evil is not a substance to be created or destroyed - it is a way which is contrary to God's ways.  For instance, if I become conceited, that would be evil (sin) because that is contrary to God's good ways (love, humility, etc.)  But it wouldn't really make sense to ask "Why did God decide to create my conceitedness?" because it obviously isn't a substance to be created, and if it were, He obviously wouldn't have created it.  Evil only sounds like a substance due to clever wordplay.

What God did is speak a perfect, good creation into existence, complete with beings who have the capacity to love and receive love.  Obviously love involves choice, so men were created with a capacity to willingly love Him.

Why The Tree?

God created man with the capacity to choose to love God and walk in His good ways.  That would be absolutely pointless if man was never presented with an opportunity to make a choice of any kind!

Enter "the tree."  When we're talking about the forbidden fruit, we really need to take a moment and reflect on the situation prior to Genesis 3.  God has just created an entire "very good" universe and essentially handed it all over to man.  He made celestial objects for signs and seasons, filled an entire planet with creatures and plants, and prepared a paradise garden to walk with them in.  There was one thing they weren't allowed to do.  One rule.  One little ol' tree in the middle of the whole big creation which they were told not to eat from.  We're not talking about the Levitical Law here... this was a pretty reasonable boundary!  Let us keep this in mind as we continue.

As I mentioned, the tree provided them with an opportunity to choose.  With this one tree being off-limits, they now had an awareness of "right and wrong."  Make no mistake - they knew it was wrong to eat the fruit - God made that very clear.  That is not to say that they "knew" (had a personal experiential understanding of) evil; just that they "knew" (had the knowledge of) right and wrong.

Q & A

"If the fruit was 'forbidden', why did God put it in front of man?"  Answer: "Forbidden" means it was a boundary which God set.  He could have chosen any boundary He wanted - He could have said "don't stand over there."  He chose the fruit, hence "forbidden" fruit.  (Why did He choose the fruit?  That's another question!)

"If God wanted Adam in Eden, why did he keep the fruit there?"  Answer: The tree represented the choice which made willing love possible.  The proximity allowed them a continual choice, which made continual love possible.  It's not that God planted "temptation" and "wickedness" before man's eyes, but rather, that He planted "a choice" in their midst.

"Why was it necessary to present Adam with a test which he was bound to fail?"  Answer: This question is based on a misunderstanding.  Adam had a choice, and chose to sin.  The idea that he was "bound to fail the test" is false.  (Consider the angels - some fell, some did not.)

"Who knew better than God that Adam would fail the test?"  Answer: This line of reasoning assumes that foreknowledge necessitates fatalism, and eliminates accountability.  Both assumptions are false.  Yes, God knew what Adam would choose - but it was Adam who chose.

"If God wanted Adam to fall, why was it necessary to trick him first?"  Answer: The premise of this question is a false assumption.  God didn't want Adam to fall.  Also, God didn't trick him.

Hope that helps!


Did John Wesley use to pray in Latin due to the bad relationship with his wife? In his book, The Attributes of God, A. W. Tozer mentions that John Wesley had a bad relation with his wife and because of this failed marriage, it is said that he (sometimes) used to pray in Latin so that his wife won't understand what he was praying about.
The version of the book I have has no bibliography, so I am looking for the primary source of these affirmations.

Some men have wives that are wildcats—difficult to get along with—and they think they are tempted above all others. John Wesley was married to a wildcat, and she didn’t even have her claws trimmed. But God got John Wesley through all right.
He used to kneel down and pray in Latin so his wife wouldn’t be able to know what he was saying. And while he prayed, she threw old shoes at his head! Not a very nice family affair, but that’s the way they got on.
The time came when Wesley said good-bye to his wife and went off preaching, even though she didn’t want him to. And they never did get together much after that, though he saw to it that she was taken care of.
She stayed home and grumbled as he went out everywhere preaching the gospel and transforming England. Then one day he was riding along on his horse, meditating or praying, looking up in the sky. Someone rode up alongside him and said, “Mr. Wesley, your wife is dead.” And he looked down and said, “Oh, she died, did she?” And he went back to looking up. Wesley got along all right, in spite of the wife he had.
https://www.worldevangelismcenter.org/john-wesleys-wife/
and http://www.worldevangelism.net/john-wesleys-wife/

What is the source of the idea that John Wesley used to pray in Latin so that his spouse won't understand?

From the Wikipedia article on the subject:

Though Wesley favoured celibacy rather than marital bond, he married very unhappily at the age of 48 to a widow, Mary Vazeille, described as "a well-to-do widow and mother of four children." The couple had no children. Vazeille left him 15 years later. John Singleton writes:

"By 1758 she had left him – unable to cope, it is said, with the competition for his time and devotion presented by the ever-burgeoning Methodist movement. Molly, as she was known, was to return and leave him again on several occasions before their final separation."

Wesley wryly reported in his journal, "I did not forsake her, I did not dismiss her, I will not recall her."

What is the source of the idea that John Wesley used to pray in Latin so that his spouse won't understand?

Most likely from the author's personal sense of humor (the entire presentation seems to adopt a colloquial rather than scholarly tone); Latin basically served as an international and prestige language in much of the Western world until the late nineteenth and early twentieth century; it's highly unlikely that its usage in either individual prayer, private conversation, or public discourse, was done for the purpose of hiding anything from anyone; many Catholics, with which High Church Anglicanism is intimately connected (see Anglo-Catholicism), still serve Mass in Latin even today, let alone in Wesley's time.


What is the basis for missions in a wider hope/inclusive framework? I read No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized by John Sanders. I am persuaded about a wider hope for salvation other than exlusivism provides. I grew up in plain ole Baptist North Carolina and I was already suspicious of the exclusive position ("if people aren't evangelized they go to hell"), and this book cemented my belief that this thinking is wrong. However, now my foundation for missions is on shaky ground. I don't even know what real missions looks like any more.

In a "wider hope" (inclusivist) framework, what is missions and how is it implemented?

I think this question deserves an answer from an LDS (Mormon) perspective, because our doctrine fits the requirements of the question: We have both an inclusivist perspective (at least as I understand your usage of the word inclusivist) and a heavy emphasis on missionary work. I apologize if you want your answer grounded in more traditional Christianity and I'll try to stay in the Bible as much as possible.

That said, I will now answer the question.

First of all, the Bible's pretty clear as to both the importance of missionary work and its intended purpose. The ends of both Matthew (28:19-20) and Mark (16:15-16) come to mind, and I assume you know both passages well. I think most denominations can agree on this.

Secondly, I assume you have experiences with Christianity that have changed you, given you joy, given life meaning, etc. I have as well. I have no source other than what I hear continually in Sunday School lessons, but the LDS perspective here is that if religion has been so transformative for us, then why should we not share it with others? (Actually, I do have a better LDS source: This talk given by Elder Bednar, an apostle, at a recent conference)

With that foundation I can address the idea of inclusivism, which I need to do from a position that is more specifically LDS, because our inclusivism is slightly different from what I've read elsewhere. We interpret 1 Peter 4:6 pretty literally, and in fact Joseph Smith corrects the verse to state that "Because of this, the gospel is preached to them who are dead" (JST, emphasis added). Doctrine and Covenants 138 describes a vision by Joseph F. Smith, 4th president of the Church, regarding this very subject, and it starts by considering both that verse and 1 Peter 3:18-20, which we associate with it. In fact, we believe that through this mechanism of preaching to the dead, literally every person who has ever lived, or who ever will live, will get the chance to hear the Gospel of Christ and decide for him or herself whether to accept or reject it. So not only is salvation a possibility for all, but nobody's moral agency is violated.

(I should here note that the entire LDS concept of baptism for the dead rests on harmonizing this concept with the idea that baptism is essential for salvation, which John 3:5 seems to state explicitly.)

Does the above doctrine absolve us of our missionary responsibilities? Not at all! It simply adds a new dimension to them. We expect to share the gospel with others both in this life and in the life to come.

  I beheld that the faithful elders of this dispensation, when they depart from this mortal life, continue their labors in the preaching of the gospel of repentance and redemption, through the sacrifice of the Only Begotten Son of God, among those who are in darkness and under the bondage of sin in the great world of the spirits of the dead. The dead who repent will be redeemed, through obedience to the ordinances of the house of God, and after they have paid the penalty of their transgressions, and are washed clean, shall receive a reward according to their works, for they are heirs of salvation. (Doctrine and Covenants 138:56-58)


What is the basis for the claim that Ezekiel 44 is about Mary the Mother of Jesus? Upon being referred to the statements of Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologia, I read this:

  It is written (Ezekiel 44:2): "This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it; because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it." Expounding these words, Augustine says in a sermon (De Annunt. Dom. iii): "What means this closed gate in the House of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that 'no man shall pass through it,' save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this--'The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it'--except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of angels shall be born of her? And what means this--'it shall be shut for evermore'--but that Mary is a virgin before His Birth, a virgin in His Birth, and a virgin after His Birth?"

It seems to me that the context of this passage is about the temple that Ezekiel is to have built than any idea about the future. Indeed, the vision takes Ezekiel to other gates and other parts of the temple. I cannot find any New Testament writer (or subject) who alludes to this text.

Why would someone conclude that this passage is about Mary, the Mother of Jesus?

Even before Augustine, St. Ambrose of Milan and St. Jerome used this verse in support of the dogma of the Perpetual virginity of Mary. Probably St. Augustine learned from his teacher St. Ambrose of Milan.

Some quite emphatically understand this closed gate through which only the Lord God of Israel passes … as the Virgin Mary, who remains a Virgin before and after childbirth. In fact, she remains always a Virgin, in the moment in which the Angel speaks with her and when the Son of God is born. -St. Jerome (Commentarium in Evangelium Lucae, PL 25, 430.)
Only Christ opened the closed doors of the virginal womb, which continued to remain closed, however. This is the closed eastern gate, through which only the high priest may enter and exit and which nevertheless is always closed. -St. Jerome (Dialogus contra Pelagianos 2, 4)
“Who is this gate (Ezekiel 44:1-4), if not Mary? Is it not closed because she is a virgin? Mary is the gate through which Christ entered this world, when He was brought forth in the virginal birth and the manner of His birth did not break the seals of virginity.” -St. Ambrose (The Consecration of a Virgin and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary , 8:52)
"She is closed because she is a virgin; she is a gate, because Christ has entered through her......This gate faces east, because she has given birth to him who rises, the sun of justice.....Mary is the good gate that was closed and was not opened. Christ passed through it, but did not open it." -St. Ambrose (De Institutione Virginis, 8, 57. PL 16, 334)

But these people may not be the first to say this, because all of them are of same time period and people after them too use this same verse for this purpose and do not attribute it to them. This interpretation probably existed for more than a century before and is put in writing by these men.
The verse says that the door is already shut. And the only reason for it being shut is because the Lord has entered by it; And because of this reason It shall remain shut. Mary is ever virgin. The reason why Mary is virgin is because Jesus was born thru her. And because of that reason she will remain a virgin for ever (i.e., her womb will be shut, no one else will enter or exit it).
//It seems to me that the context of this passage is about the temple that Ezekiel is to have built//
If you look closely, almost every messianic prophecy is a context to something else. Take for example the prophesy The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (Is 7:14) In its immediate context this is a sign to king Ahaz of Judah, promising the king that God will destroy his enemies even before that child grows up(Is 7:16). But Matthew holds that this as fulfilled in Jesus (Mat 1:23).
Such difference of context was the main point of contention between Jews and Christians from early on. Even Jesus had to explain this to his disciples (Luke 24:27).


Can a priest administer last rites to himself? In Catholicism, is a priest allowed to administer the "last rites" to himself (assuming no one else is there to do it for him)?

A priest could consecrate a host and administer himself Viaticum (last Holy Communion before his death). A priest cannot absolve himself, but he could make an act of perfect contrition. Extreme unction is performed by a priest on a sick person with the use of reason.