Did Luther believe in gnomish creatures? Luther in his translation of Isa. 34:14 renders Lilith as Kobold, a gnomish creature from German folklore who inhabits mines and mischievously contaminates silver.

Did Luther really believe in this mythical creature?

Luther's objective was to express the Bible using words used by ordinary Germans. The following is an extract from his Letter on translation:

  We do not have to ask the literal Latin how we are to speak German, as these donkeys do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common man in the marketplace. We must be guided by their language, by the way they speak, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.

The Latin vulgate translates Lilith as "Lamia".  Wycliffe also uses "Lamia", translating the whole verse as

  fiends, and wonderful beasts, like men in the higher part, and like asses in the nether part, and an hairy, shall meet; one shall cry to another. Lamia shall lie there, and find rest there to herself;

There are many interpretations and beliefs concerning lamia. They were  often regarded as demonic or mythological, or both, may eat children and may seduce young men and suck their blood.   They were unnatural beings of the night, and Luther felt that concept was best expressed in German by the German word kobold. Not all kobolds were said to live in mines and not all were bad, some were more akin to brownies (after which Lady Baden Powell named the younger girls in the Girl Guide/Boy Scout movement).

Luther's father, Hans Luder, was a miner and a smelter, so it is likely Luther would have been most familiar with the mine-dwelling kobolds. The standard work on mining for almost 200 years, though not published until after Luther's death, was written by Georgius Agricola.  This contains the following (Book 4, page 217):

  In some of our mines, however, though in very few, there are other pernicious pests. These are demons of ferocious aspect, about which I have spoken in my book De Animantibus Subterraneis. Demons of this kind are expelled and put to flight by prayer and fasting.

Die Animantibus includes the passage:

  "Then there are the gentle kind which the Germans as well as the Greeks call cobalos, because they mimic men. They appear to laugh with glee and pretend to do much, but really do nothing. They are called little miners, because of their dwarfish stature, which is about two feet. They are venerable looking and are clothed like miners in a filleted garment with a leather apron about their loins. This kind does not often trouble the miners, but they idle about in the shafts and tunnels and really do nothing, although they pretend to be busy in all kinds of labour, sometimes digging ore, and sometimes putting into buckets that which has been dug. Sometimes they throw pebbles at the workmen, but they rarely injure them unless the workmen first ridicule or curse them.

Belief in these seems to have been general amongst miners.

In the book of Luther's table talk(section 574) is:

  The devil vexes and harasses the workmen in the mines. He makes them think they have found fine new veins of silver, which, when they have labored and labored, turn out to be more illusions. Even in open day, on the surface of the earth, he causes people to think they see a treasure before them, which vanishes when they would pick it up. At times, treasure is really found, but this is by the special grace of God. I never had any success in the mines, but such was God's will, and I am content.

Ores which appear as if they contain silver may actually contain arsenical-cobalt which is damaging to health. The name for the metal cobalt, which at that time was not known,  comes from the German kobold, as it was believed goblins put it there to trick the miners, raising false hopes and damaging health.  Luther in his table talk seems be referring to kobolds as the devil.

The following article in the Protestant Reformed Theological Journal reviews Luther's demonology and includes the following:

  Luther was convinced, both on the basis of Scripture’s testimony and his own experience, that the devil and his hosts exhibit a real presence and exert an equally real influence on the world of human experience.  Luther believed that there were male and female demons.   He believed that there were goblins and ghosts, spectres and poltergeists, hags and witches.   All of these not only had contact with the world of humans, but were able also, in negative and harmful ways, to impact the lives of men, women, and children.  Haile observes,

  Devils were in evidence everywhere.  Luther’s sermons and private remarks are brimful of tales about that grim, mocking demon, a helpful but ever insolent servant.  He was held responsible for pretty much every trivial inconvenience and monstrous evil in the world, from the sulphur taste clinging to certain beers, to the crazy carryings-on of the radical sects and the unspeakable perversions of the papacy.

,

  “And though this world, with devils filled…”  was not just a hypothetical possibility with Luther.  It was the sober reality.

This refers to his hymn:

  And were this world all devils o’er,

  And watching to devour us,

  We lay it not to heart so sore;

  Not they can overpower us.

It seems then that Luther probably believed in these creatures as some form of demonic manifestation.


What is the Catholic explanation for temptation? I have recently been thinking: Why am I tempted to sin at all? If a Higher Power created me and the universe, as well as a set of laws for me to follow, why am I tempted to break these laws? Did he choose to create a universe where people like me feel bombarded with temptation and desire to break the laws that this Higher Power gave us?

I want an explanation for these questions, but I'm not positive that I have found one myself that does not involve statements similar to either "the Higher Power who created us is not all-powerful" or "the Higher Power that created us chose that we should feel tempted". In the second case, it does not seem to me that this Higher Power is as kind and as loving as I believe him to be.

So according to Catholicism, why does temptation even exist in the first place?

Good question.   As it turns out, there isn't an official Catholic position.  That is, the Catechism does not address the question of why temptation occurs.  What follows is an argument combining the thinking of several different Catholic scholars.

First, the definition of temptation is

  An attraction, either from outside oneself or from within, to act contrary to right reason and the commandments of God (Glossary to the Catechism)

To never be tempted would mean that God would have to both control your thoughts (making anything wrong repulsive to prevent internal temptation) and the actions of other people (to prevent external temptation).  This would clearly interfere with free will.  As Charles Pope says:

  temptation is the "necessary" result of freedom. As free persons who are invited to love God and to say yes to his will, we must be permitted to say no. There must be real alternatives to what God offers. If God could force our yes, then we would not be free and our yes would have no real meaning.

Additionally, facing temptation is actually beneficial to the believer.  As Father Fortea says:

  Without temptation, there would be no opportunity for us to grow in virtue every time we successfully resist the allure of sin and remain faithful to God’s will... In other words, we could say that God permits a certain amount of darkness in this world (temptation and sin) so that a purer and brighter light (virtue and salvation) can be gained. So God allows temptation because He knows that much good can come from it if we resist.

On this point, see also James 1:2-3:

  My brothers, consider it a great joy when trials of many kinds come upon you, for you well know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance (NJB)

God will, however, prevent us from facing temptations beyond our ability to resist.  (If we truly could not resist, we would not be culpable for our actions.)  See 1 Corinthians 10:13:

  None of the trials which have come upon you is more than a human being can stand. You can trust that God will not let you be put to the test beyond your strength, but with any trial will also provide a way out by enabling you to put up with it.

The Catholic Harbor of Faith and Morals takes this "moral shaping" idea a step further, writing:

  God allows us to be tempted out of mercy, for the good of our souls... He allows us to be tried by temptation to give us the opportunity of manifesting our loyalty to Him, and acquiring a claim to the recompense He promises us. Thus He has only our welfare in view.  (my bold)

On this point, the Vulgate version of Tobit is cited:

  And because thou wast acceptable to God, it was necessary that temptation should prove thee. (12:13, Douay-Rheims)

Additional that site offers the following positive benefits of facing temptation:

Rouses the believer from an otherwise apathetic state
Cleanses imperfections (by making us aware of them)
Humbles us
Increase spiritual strength (you can't grow in faith by standing still)
Make us more charitable in our dealing with others

It concludes:

  Thus we see that the tempter does us good service, and his temptations are steps in the ladder which leads to heaven. Therefore let him who is tempted rather pray for strength to resist the temptation than for its entire removal.


When did the term "New Testament" first come into usage? While reading William Bridge's, "The Wounded Conscience Cured," (1642) I came across Bridge's usage of the term "New Testament" :

  "And in the New Testament, Romans 13.1..."

  -William Bridge, "The  Wounded Conscience Cured," (5)

While obviously not the earliest usage of the term "New Testament," this did get me wondering about how early on the term first came into usage.

David Trobisch, a prominient scholar on the formation of the Christian Bible, records in his book what he deems to be the earliest usage of the term in an anonymous late second-century treatise against the heresy of Montanism :

  "At approximately the same time, (late second century) the
  previously mentioned anonymous  treatise against the Montanist
  movement seems to use the term New Testament in reference to a written
  source. The author explains that  he was initially very reluctant to
  write at all. He did not want to  create 'the impression that he was
  adding anything to the word of the  gospel of the New Testament;
  since no one, who decided to live  according to the gospel, can add to
  it or take away from it.'"

  -David Trobisch, "The First Edition of the New Testament", (44)

With regards to answers, "New Testament" does not have to be used in reference to a modern day canon; however, "New Testament" should inherently be used to describe some sort of canon from antiquity.

Therefore,

I am curious if there are any other earlier usages of the term "New Testament" or is David Trobisch's example truly the earliest, extant usage of the term?

Just to clarify, I am not inquiring of the earliest English usage of the term, but earliest in any language, so a usage resembling (but not exclusive to): Novum Testamentum, Καινή Διαθήκη, ܕܝܲܐܬܝܼܩܝܼ ܚܵܕܬܵܐ.

It seems that the first written usage of the term "New Testament" comes from the writings of Melito of Sardis (died c.180) and followed by Tertullian (c. 155 - c. 240). The term "New Testament" was coined in the second century.

  Etymology

  The term New Testament is a translation from the Latin Novum Testamentum first coined by the second century Christian writer Tertullian. It is related to the concept expressed by the prophet Jeremiah (31:33), that translates into English as new covenant:

  'The time is coming," declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah… '

  This concept of the new covenant is also discussed in the eighth chapter of the Letter to the Hebrews, in which the "old covenant" is portrayed as inferior and even defective (Hebrews 8:7). Indeed, many Christians considered the "old" covenant with the Jews to be obsolete. In Tertullian's day, some even considered the God of the Hebrew Bible to be a very different being than the Heavenly Father of Jesus. Tertullian took the orthodox position, that the God of the Jews and the God of the Christians are one and the same. He therefore wrote:

  "All Scripture is divided into two Testaments. That which preceded the advent and passion of Christ—-that is, the law and the prophets—-is called the Old; but those things which were written after His resurrection are named the New Testament. The Jews make use of the Old, we of the New: but yet they are not discordant… (Against Marcion)."

  While Christians have thus come to refer to the Hebrew Scriptures as the Old Testament, Jews prefer the term Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh, the latter word being an acronym for its three basic component parts: the Torah (Book of Moses), Nevi'im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings). - New Testament (New World Encyclopedia)

The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say the New Testament:

  Name

  Testament come from testamentum, the word by which the Latin ecclesiastical writers translated the Greek diatheke. With the profane authors this latter term means always, one passage of Aristophanes perhaps excepted, the legal disposition a man makes of his goods for after his death. However, at an early date, the Alexandrian translators of the Scripture, known as the Septuagint, employed the word as the equivalent of the Hebrew berith, which means a pact, an alliance, more especially the alliance of Yahweh with Israel. In St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:25) Jesus Christ uses the words "new testament" as meaning the alliance established by Himself between God and the world, and this is called "new" as opposed to that of which Moses was the mediator. Later on, the name of testament was given to the collection of sacred texts containing the history and the doctrine of the two alliances; here again and for the same reason we meet the distinction between the Old and New Testaments. In this meaning the expression Old Testament (he palaia diatheke) is found for the first time in Melito of Sardis, towards the year 170. There are reasons for thinking that at this date the corresponding word "testamentum" was already in use amongst the Latins. In any case it was common in the time of Tertullian. - The New Testament


Is the Virgin Mary ever referred to as "the Holy Table" (ἡ ἁγία ἡ τράπεζα)? I'm still in the process of translating a work of John of Damascus concerning the Eucharist and the body of Christ, entitled Περὶ τοῦ ἀχράντου σώματος, οὗ μεταλαμβάνομεν.

In section 4, he writes,

  Ἐκεῖ ἦν ἡ ἁγία Παρθένος ἡ τράπεζα, ἔχουσα τὴν ὕλην τοῦ σώματος.

My tendency is to translate this as, "There was the holy table, the Virgin, bearing the matter of the body." It's talking about the virgin Mary bearing Christ in her womb, and that Christ assumed flesh from her.

However, the phrase ἡ ἁγία Παρθένος ἡ τράπεζα puzzled me. Is Mary ever referred to as "the holy table" (ἡ ἁγία ἡ τράπεζα) in Catholic doctrine?

Part of the Litany of the Holy Name of Mary:

  Mary, house of God, pray for us
  Mary, sanctuary of the Lord, pray for us
  Mary, altar of the Divinity, pray for us
  Mary, Virgin Mother, pray for us
  Mary, embracing your Infant God, pray for us

The Holy Table would be the altar. Calling the altar the Holy Table is mostly an Eastern Catholic and Orthodox thing. You might look up something like the History of the Christian Altar to help decide which translation is best, or see if he uses a different word for altar.


Why did God kill a man for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation; and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.  - Numbers 15: 32-36 (NASB)

Why did God order the execution (and a brutal execution, at that) of a person for picking up sticks on the Sabbath?  Surely what this man did was nothing worse than what Jesus' disciples did when they picked heads of grain on the Sabbath:

And it happened that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain. The Pharisees were saying to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”
...
Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. - Mark 2:23-27

Such a harsh punishment doesn't seem necessary if the Sabbath truly was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
Also, how does this align with the justice of God?  God forbids the punishment of those who beat their slaves:

If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property. - Exodus 21:20-21

... yet He requires those who pick up sticks on a certain day of the week to be executed in the most unimaginably painful and cruel way.  In our 21st century minds, it seems that justice would demand that the punishments for these two crimes be switched.  What was God's reason for having such an inverted justice system?

Sometimes, God's Punishment for Disobedience is Death.

This is a simple fact. The severity of the punishment often corresponds to the severity of the offense, so why was this offense so severe? The text doesn't say this explicitly, but if we assume that God could have sufficient justification for execution, then it's likely that he was knowingly and defiantly disobeying a command he knew.

God places a high value on community and example. He seems to want to protect the community by insisting that everyone be a good example and that individuals who would do things that would lead their neighbors astray should be removed from the community (typically, executed).
Is disobedience a severe enough offense to warrant execution? To God, the answer is sometimes yes. The majority of these instances are examples to the community so that the people would take God seriously when he gives them commands.

God insisted that Israel be different from the nations around them and wanted them to do things the way he had prescribed. We are not told precisely why these details about his prescribed methods are important, only that obeying them is. Two of Aaron's sons are put to death for "offering strange fire" (Le 10:1). The priest Uzzah was killed (by God) for touching the Ark of the Covenant (2 Sa 6), even though he had good intentions of saving the ark from accident, he knew full well that touching the ark was something he was not permitted to do. Ananaias and Saphira were killed (by God) for lying. Is lying that bad or was it important to demonstrate to the early church that God is both powerful and serious?

Though God is willing to forgive people, and punitive death is not synonymous with eternal damnation, he insists that we understand that he is not to be trifled with. His patience with us might be great, but in the end, his wrath is just as great.

Example

You compare the situations in Numbers 15 and Mark 2.

One obvious difference I see between these two is that of the motivation of the people who are doing the work. The disciples are doing this because they have been about God's work and are hungry. The man in Numbers 15 is not described as such. Though the text doesn't say one way or the other, it might be reasonable to assume that because the punishment is severe, so was the offense. He surely knew that he was supposed to do all that work the day before. It would be reasonable to conclude that he must have had selfish motivations for doing what he was doing. Work was certainly permitted on the Sabbath if the motivation were correct. (Mt 12:11)


What does inherit the earth mean in Matthew 5:5 I had a discussion with some friends last night about the meaning of the phrase "the meek will inherit the earth" in Matthew.

Matthew 5:5. NIV

  Blessed are the meek,
      for they will inherit the earth.

There were a whole lot of different ideas flying around. Just wondering, is that talking about this present earth, or the next? Also, is it speaking corporately or individually? Not sure if there's a "right" answer for this question.

It depends on which tradition you subscribe to.

Present Earth or New Earth?

Covenant theology (with an amillenial eschatology, this would include Presbyterians) would say that the meek are going to inherit the current earth, which will be renewed, while most dispensationalists (with a millenial theology, most Americans in Bible/Baptist backgrounds) would hold to the view that the current earth will be destroyed, and a new earth will be created.  2 Peter 3:13 says:

  But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new
  earth in which righteousness dwells.

The covenant theologian would say that this word for "new" really means "renewed" while the dispensationalist will argue that it means "new", as in a brand new creation, unrelated to the last.

Corporate or Individual?

I would have to argue that in both situations, it's saying that the meek will, corporately, inherit the earth.  The word for "meek" in the original Greek is rendered in the plural, so it's talking about a group of meek people, as opposed to a singular meek person.


What is the Biblical basis for Irresistible Grace? Calvin, among his other points, includes the point that when we are saved, we are irresistibly drawn to God and that there is nothing we can do to prevent this or cause this. What is the Biblical basis for this claim?

There are several scriptures that illustrate that God draws his elect to him.

These were cribbed from this site

John 6:35-37 States that those the Father gives will come to him. Not that they might come. That they will come.

  35Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

Romans 8:28-30 Lay out the path to salvation quite clearly. He predestines us, calls us, justifies us and then glorifies us. There doesn't seem to be any doubt that those he predestines will be called, or that those he calls will be justified or those he justifies will be glorified.

  28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

John 6:43-51 (emphasis mine). This quite clearly says no one comes to Christ except that the Father draws them. (Ref was cribbed from wikipedia)

  43“Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

It seems to me that the scriptural proof for needing to be drawn to Christ is pretty clear. However, the Irresistible nature of that drawing power could be questioned. The Romans 8 passage and John  6:37 are clear on this however. Those who are called will be drawn.


Hebrew New Testament with cantillation marks Hebrew manuscripts of the Hebrew Tanakh feature taʿamim or “cantillation marks” incorporated by the Masoretes.

Are there any Hebrew translations of the New Testament that feature cantillation marks?

Stu W wrote,

the New Testament is not sung, it is spoken--even in Messianic Jewish temples to my knowledge. As such you will not find cantillation symbols specific to cadence because no such cadence exists. By the 19th century, Hebrew had tense, and no such cadence was necessary for comprehension.

My research has yielded a contrary answer. According to Wikipedia, on the entry “Cantillation,” section “In Christian missionary uses,” it states,

The Jewish born Christian convert Ezekiel Margoliouth translated the New Testament to Hebrew in 1865 with cantillation marks added. It is the only completely cantillated translation of the New Testament. The translation was published by the London Jews' Society.

The following is an image of Matt. 1:1 featuring the cantillation marks:

References
Margoliouth, Ezekiel. הברית החדשה על פי המשיח עם נקודות וטעמים (The New Testament according to the Messiah with Vowel Points and Cantillation Marks). London: London Jews’ Society, 1923.


Can a Pope elevate a non-heretical yet minority opinion to the level of dogma? For example, the empty Hell theory is a relatively recent theological theory that states that Hell is real, but it is empty and will always be empty. There is nothing in this doctrine that conflicts with established church dogma (As far as I know). Nevertheless it is a minority opinion and as I understand it, it faces much opposition.

I'm wondering, is it within the Popes power to take such an obscure and contested opinion and ex cathedra declare it to be a dogma? Or does the Pope first have to consult all the bishops?

I ask this question because I've been thinking about the Arian crisis, which was a situation where the majority of the church denied the trinity and the divinity of Christ (including some Popes and lots of bishops!). In that case it was an ecumenical council which authoritatively declared Trinitarian Orthodoxy, and this was binding, even though at the time almost no one in the church agreed with it and it was a minority view. It took some time for the authoritative decision to permeate the consciousness of the Church and now we have the situation today where the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ are considered cornerstone, foundational doctrines of the faith.

So, similar to the Arian situation, would it be possible for a Pope to elevate a non-heretical yet minority position to dogmatic status, even if the majority of the church disagrees? Again, for a concrete example, think of the Empty Hell theory: It's not heretical, but also isn't accepted by the majority of the Church.

The Arian controversy was dealt with at a time when the doctrine of papal infallibility was not yet established. Although it was an ecumenical council which authoritatively declared Trinitarian Orthodoxy, belief was actually mandated by Emperor Theodosius. I doubt whether, during the fourth century, there was ever a time when almost no one in the Church agreed with Trinitarianism or even that it was definitely a minority view. Nevertheless, I think I understand the scenario you see as possible.

Papal infallibility has only ever been invoked on two occasions, so it would be  an extremely solemn and exceptional circumstance when a future pope would even consider declaring doctrine ex cathedra. Popes have many ways of leading the Church to a position, without the sledgehammer approach that unnecessary use of papal infallibility would involve.

Take the example of human evolution, which Catholics are now permitted to believe in, but which would have been a minority position within the Church hierarchy only a few decades ago. No pope made any doctrinal pronouncement, but gradually, pope by pope, the papacy led the Church towards accepting evolution as fact, until the possibility of evolution of our species is no longer a minority position within the Church ranks.

It is not possible to predict what all future popes will do, but if a pope ever wants to declare a minority position to be infallible doctrine, I am sure he would first set out to convince the cardinals.  With support of the cardinals, he perhaps could speak ex cathedra on the matter, but more likely would call an ecumenical council to determine the matter.


How did St John of Damascus view Islam? John of Damascus was one of the first Christian authors to write about the rise of Islam shortly after the time of Muhammad. I am fascinated by this man but I can't seem to find enough info about this subject on the Internet. I was wondering how exactly did he view Islam in his writings?

You may find a book that shows his writing about the followers of Islam On Heresies (see 101) by St. John of Damascus .

The writing of St. John of Damascus basically runs like this: (Actually he does not really say that much in depth, or from argumentation from scripture but still it is interesting)

He mentions Mohammed and his book
He pokes fun at the idea that a man can claim to receive such a book without any witnesses
The main heresy in Mohammed's book is that it denies Jesus to be God
He says Islamists accused the Christians at that time of idolatry because of how they venerated a cross and he in turn questions their veneration of the black stone at Mecca
He accused Mohammed of legalizing polygamy
He proceeds to make fun of some strange additional books written by Mohammed  especially the first about a Camel that went to heaven
He returns to the subject of their opposition to veneration of images, Saints , Mary, and rejection of Priesthoods.
Finally he states the traditional doctrine of the Trinity to rebuff their main error.


How does Pope Benedict XVI reconcile conscience and authority? A recent talk by Father Bob Pierson 1 quoted Joseph Ratzinger (as he then was, now Pope Benedict XVI) as saying that the individual conscience must overrule ecclesiastical authority. I was intrigued by Pierson's claim and looked up the original source, which is an early commentary2  on Gaudium et spes, specifically its Article 16. I've put the section quoted by Pierson in italics.

  For Newman, conscience represents the inner complement and limit of the Church principle. Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism. Genuine ecclesiastical obedience is distinguished from any totalitarian claim which cannot accept any ultimate obligation of this kind beyond the reach of its dominating will.

I am finding the final sentence quite difficult to parse. It seems like he is saying that genuine ecclesiastical obedience does accept a controlling role for conscience. But then it sounds like one can simultaneously disobey and "genuinely obey", which is odd. Elsewhere in the text, Ratzinger speaks about natural law and the Golden Rule as standards to diagnose and reshape the "erroneous conscience", and it surprised me that he doesn't also mention the Church there. Overall, I think I am missing something basic which would help me to understand what he means in the passage above.

So: What relationship between conscience and Church authority does the Pope actually envisage?

I'm looking for answers that draw on his other writings, up to the present day - in particular, sources that illuminate what he personally thinks, as opposed to those which are primarily about what the Church as a whole accepts.

1. Video and transcript here; I'm linking to Daily Kos because they're the only site I can find which provides a text transcript, not because I endorse Pierson, Kos, etc. The original talk was on homosexual civil marriage, but this question is emphatically not; I'm not asking whether he's right or wrong, just using his quotation to ask a different question.
2. Monograph by Joseph Ratzinger collected in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, volume 5, ed. Herbert Vorgrimler (Herder and Herder, 1969). Translated by W. J. O'Hara from Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil, Dokumente und Kommentare (1968). The quoted text starts on page 134.

Hmmm. Thanks for this question. First, it prompted me to read the relevant section in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraphs 1776-1802). In brief, the Catechism says this-

Man must obey his conscience.
Man must recognize that his conscience can be erroneous and seek to inform it.
Conscience can remain in ignorance, and such ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. So man cannot say that "well, my conscience compelled me to do it, so I cannot be blamed". (In the case that the priest refers to, this 3rd clause most definitely applies. Those people whose consciences tell them to vote in opposition to Catholic teaching must ensure that they inform their consciences).

We can safely assume that Pope Benedict XVI, being a practicing Catholic, holds all of the above three.

Now, coming to the text you cited, what struck me was the first two words -

  "For Newman..."

This means that Joseph Ratzinger is referring to Newman's views on the subject. Now, Newman is quoted in the Catechism, paragraph 1778. The  footnote for CCC 1778 says -

  John Henry Cardinal Newman, "Letter to the Duke of Norfolk," V, in
  Certain Difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching II
  (London: Longmans Green, 1885), 248.

If we read the letter cited in the above footnote, we find that Newman explains his position on conscience. According to Newman, conscience must always be obeyed. He also says that conscience and papal infallibility can never be in conflict. According to Newman, conscience and ecclesiastical authority can be in conflict in matters that do not pertain to infallibility. But Newman also agrees that it is possible to have an erroneous conscience. I suppose that Ratzinger holds the same, namely that conscience should be obeyed over and above the pope in matters where the pope is not infallible, whereas genuine ecclesiastical obedience is expected in matters where he is.


How does Christ's hypostatic union affect the temporal nature of the Trinity? The term hypostatic union is a concise way to say that Jesus was fully God and fully Man at the same time (glossing over the details). There are a number of opinions on the precise details of this union, but I think that by and large, most would agree that the hypostatic union did not exist before Jesus was born.

This raises an interesting question. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Yet, He changed upon being born. And given that after the Resurrection, His body still had the flesh wounds, He Ascended to Heaven in that body, and is described with a body in Revelation, a reasonable assumption would be that Christ still exists in the hypostatic union and will do so for eternity.

At first glance, it seems that an atemporal God (the Son) is joined together with a temporal body (Jesus). If this is correct, then how does the Hypostatic Union affect the temporal/atemporal nature of the Trinity? If this is incorrect, then where is my error in thinking?

Sources deriving from the writings of great theologians (especially in the first few centuries) would be most appreciated, but well-supported exegesis would be fine as well.

Opposites cannot be said truly of the same thing in the same way: the divine and human things said of Christ are, of course, in opposition, suffering and incapable of suffering, for example, or dead and immortal
St. Thomas Aquinas - On the Trinity and the Incarnation Chapter 39

St. Thomas holds that Christs two natures are neither confused nor mixed. And Jesus' body, which has natural properties is subject to them.  Christ's divine nature is not subject to the things that His human nature is subject to.
I think you're thinking that they're mixed somehow and Christ's human nature (and subsequent death) brings down the Trinity or splits it up for a bit.  But that's just not contingent on the Incarnation.    If so, the Trinity would have been affected by the Incarnation as well as by the Crucifixion and It would have been made more glorious by the Transfiguration and even more glorious by the Resurrection.

Furthermore,

It is clear also from this that, although the Son is incarnate, neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit, for all that, need be incarnate, since the Incarnation did not take place by a union in the nature in which the three divine Persons are together, but in hypostasis...

The Trinity is a plurality of Persons subsisting in one nature and the Incarnation is one Person subsisting in a plurality of natures.
So, Trinity and the Incarnations require more than complicated Venn Diagrams to explain.

  +-----------------+   (Incarnation)
 +                   +       |
 +      Father    +--+-------|---+
 +        +------+DN +--+    |    +
  +------+-------+--+    + Son HN +
         + Spirit+       +   |    +
         +               +---|---+
          +-------------+    |

DN = divine Nature
HN = Human Nature
but an even better than a crummy ASCII venn diagram is every piece of religious art depicting Jesus ever

where you see Jesus' hand with two fingers and a thumb up representing the Blessed Trinity and two fingers down representing His two natures.


What does Paul mean when he speaks of "in Christ"? Does Paul point to any type of mystical experience when he speaks of "in Christ"? What does he express? It seems this phrase cannot be taken literally - so what is the deeper meaning of it, possibly from a philological point of view?

Since there are tons of different places in which Paul uses the phrase, some specific references might help here.

In Acts 24:24, for example, Paul refers to "faith in Christ Jesus." Faith here refers not to the pseudo-power claimed by the "word of faith" movement, but rather having faith in the testimony of Christ.

Romans 6:3, on the other hand, refers to being "baptized into Christ." Here the Greek word baptizo literally means "immersed" or fully a part of Christ. It could also refer, in this context, to being baptized in the name of Christ.

Romans 8:1 provides another variation of the phrase: "There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." [emphasis mine] Perhaps this is the type of phrase you're looking for, as Paul uses this terminology quite a bit. The Complete Jewish Bible may provide a clarification in its translation: "Therefore, there is no longer any condemnation awaiting those who are in union with the Messiah Yeshua." [emphasis mine] (Yeshua is the commonly accepted Hebrew name translated into Greek and Latin as Iesus, or into English as Jesus.)

Galatians 2:20, while it may not use the phrase in all translations, may further explain the concept. "I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So the life I now live in the body, I live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." To Paul his old life as Saul of Tarsus, persecutor of Christians, was gone. Saul was dead, crucified as Christ was. His new life through a full-bonded union with Christ was represented by his new name, Paul the apostle. His life was completely subsumed by the lift of Christ. Obviously, as @Narnian points out, this is not a physical movement into a place or person, but a metaphysical or spiritual replacement.


Being an endtime prophecy, how does Genesis 49:10 affect Christians since one side of it in ''Judah'' already has? In Genesis 49:1, sons of Jacob gathered at his request that he may tell them what would 'befall them' in ''the last days,''which I understand being peculiar as an endtimes' reference.

So when Jacob comes to Judah, in addition to other utterances, he pronounces a messianic blessing in the following verse;

  Genesis 49:10
  The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

According to reformed theology, how does this particular verse bear upon believers in these endtimes? If at all.

Because in Genesis 49:10, it clearly distinguishes 'Judah' as a 'lawgiver,'' which role also Psalm 60:7 & Psalm 108 affirm, while 'Ephraim' is the strength of God's head.

  Gilead is mine, and Manasseh is mine; Ephraim also is the strength of my head; Judah is my lawgiver;(Psalm 60:7)

To my understanding this isn't a casual comparison between Judah and Ephraim, since we as christians see the result of 'Judah' being a lawgiver among all the nations.

Putting it differently, according to christianity, Jews have missed Messiah's birth, since a part of that prophecy has come true in ''Judah'', and that is, from Judah came one who is Messiah, a belief which is the life and the foundation of christianity. Yet that prophecy doesn't end with ''Judah,'' but with ''Shiloh,'' which latter in many places is associated with the northern kingdom in words like ''strength of my head'' in Psalm 60 and 108, but which northern kingdom ( Ephraim) is ''NOT a people,'' long before the coming of ''Judah,'' ref;Isaiah 7:8.
Could it be the same with christians, that while we point at Jews for their oversight, we have as well misunderstood this character of 'shiloh' in Genesis 49:10, who is portrayed in the above Psalms as being in the same honour as 'Judah' atleast as far as Judah's sceptre is concerned?

Jewish scholars admit that the meaning of the Masoretic Text in Genesis 49:10 is obscure.  In some interpretations "Shiloh" is understood to mean "shai loh" - "tribute to him".  This would be more consistent with the Septuagint, which is based on a Hebrew text centuries older than the Masoretic Text:

  A ruler shall not fail from Judah, nor a prince from his loins, until there come the things stored up for him; and he is the expectation of
  nations.

This verse could be interpreted to refer to the first coming of Christ, not the end times, since when Christ was born a ruler had, in fact, failed to come from Judah:  Herod's father was an Edomite who had converted to Judaism and was therefore not from the tribe of Judah.


Why did "Lift Every Voice and Sing" become the "Black National Anthem"? Attending an African American church service recently, I was introduced to the hymn Lift Every Voice and Sing.  One of my colleagues said this was the "Black National Anthem," uniquely Christian and a great solace in the fight for civil rights.

What is it that caused this song to be so closely identified with the Civil Rights Movement, and is its theology unique to a particular brand of Christianity?

Along these lines, is there a scriptural basis for this hymn?

"Lift Every Voice and Sing" was written as a poem by James Weldon Johnson for a celebration of Abraham Lincoln’s birthday in 1900. In the early 1900's, singing this song became a way for African Americans to demonstrate their patriotism and hope for the future. In calling for earth and heaven to "ring with the harmonies of Liberty," they could speak out subtly against racism and Jim Crow laws—and especially the huge number of lynchings accompanying the rise of the Ku Klux Klan at the turn of the century. In 1919, the NAACP adopted the song as "The Negro National Anthem." By the 1920s, copies of "Lift Every Voice and Sing" could be found in black, often Baptist, churches across the country.

In the 1970's, this song experienced a revival with the Civil Rights Movement.

It resonates strongly as a Christian hymn because it is a song about exodus. It is a story of a journey sanctified by faith, and protected and prospered by God.  For African Americans, the civil rights movement was their exodus story. Segregation, disenfranchisement, and racism were their Egypt, and this song was inspiration for the journey.

Bearden, Romare and Henderson, Harry. A History of African-American Artists (From 1792 to the Present), pp. 168-180, Pantheon Books (Random House), 1993, ISBN 0-394-57016-2


Does the Catholic church have an officially-sanctioned, organized form of spirituality analogous to Orthodox hesychasm? According to my understanding, hesychasm, along with asceticism, is the official, traditional, and uniformly accepted spiritual path of the Orthodox church. Is there an analogous, well-defined, widely-accepted spiritual path in the Catholic church?

I may be incorrect, but my understanding is that this practice and mode of life is fully in line with Orthodox liturgical and spiritual practice, but is not considered the only way to practice the Orthodox faith.

In Catholicism, there are many approved "rules" of life that form the basis of a monastic order or spiritual community that is fully integrated into and in full union with the church, a monastery, for example. There are also many various lay devotions and personal apostolates, as well as consecrations and third orders that indicate a serious commitment to a particular way of living out a life of faith. Examples would include consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, installation into wearing the brown scapular, the Third Order of Franciscans, praying the Rosary, Eucharistic Adoration, and the spiritual exercises of Saint Ignatius, among many others.

Because we believe that God made all sorts of people who connect with him in many different ways, we are encouraged to find ways to connect with God that resonate with us. This isn't just my opinion, it's what my bishop told me when I asked him earlier this year.

Some practices that are considered universally helpful, including frequent reading of Scripture, prayer, Eucharist, and Reconciliation.


What is the basis of St. Pius X in 1906 that led to the approval of the prayer devotion: "Mary Virgin Priest, pray for us"? In 1906, Pope Pius X approved a prayer which says “Mary, Virgin Priest, pray for us.” However, a Holy Office decree of 1916 forbade the use of any image that had Mary wearing vestments – some say for fear of the possibilty of an argument for women’s ordination, others that Mary as a priest was a metaphorical image taken too far. -The Priesthood of Mary

NOTE: There is a related thread on this question but the accepted answer is Mary Virgin Priest is not a ministerial priesthood.
Are Catholics permitted to honour Mary as a priest?.
QUALIFIER
For those who believe that Mary Virgin Priest is a valid expression , what kind of priesthood does Mary possessed? Is it similar to the Sacramental Order of the ministerial priesthood instituted by Christ or is it a unique concept associated with Mary at the foot of the Cross.
SPECIFIC QUESTION
What is the basis of St. Pius X in 1906 that led to the approval of the prayer devotion;
Mary Virgin Priest, pray for us?

What are the origins that lead Pope St. Pius X in 1906 to approve the prayer invocation: “Mary Virgin Priest, pray for us”?
Prior to Pope Pius X’s approval to this invocation, Blessed Pope Pius IX had manifested his approval of the same title in a letter addressed to Msgr Oswald Van den Berghe, author of Marie et le Sacerdoce.

Marked by the priestly piety of the school of Bérulle, Pope Saint Pius X was singularly favourable to the invocation of Our Blessed Lady under the title of Virgo Sacerdos. Already in 1875, Blessed Pius IX had manifested his approval of the same title in a letter addressed to Msgr Oswald Van den Berghe, author of Marie et le Sacerdoce. Saint Pius X was pleased when an Italian translation of this work appeared.
When the Daughters of the Heart of Jesus, founded by Blessed Marie de Jésus Deluil-Martiny, asked for permission to invoke the Mother of God, in their chapels, as Maria Virgo Sacerdos, Saint Pius X wishing to extend the devotion to all the faithful, charged Cardinals Vanutelli and Vivès with composing a prayer that would make this Marian title better known. The prayer appeared, indulgenced by Pope Saint Pius X, on 9 May 1906. - Prayer to Mary, the Sacerdotal Virgin

The Postulator of her Cause of Canonization is a priest from my home archdiocese.

The Daughters of the Heart of Jesus
The second phase of Marie Deluil Martiny’s life was a flowering of the first. After a long preparation in prayer, she opened the first house of the Society of the Daughters of the Heart of Jesus at Berchem near Anvers in Belgium on June 20, 1873. The new foundation was characterized by a burning desire to console the Heart of Jesus, and by a mystical participation in His victimal priesthood, patterned after that of His Holy Mother at the foot of the Cross.
Divine Jealousy for Sacerdotal and Consecrated Souls
Mother Marie de Jésus wrote: “They will live from that life of suffering love that was the intimate life of the Heart of Jesus; they will penetrate the most tender secrets of His love: the Eucharist, the Church, His divine jealousy for sacerdotal and consecrated souls.”
Priests: Sacrificers and Victims
“What a calling! The Work must give to Christ souls who offer themselves as a sacrifice of Love, these will be “the victims of Love that Jesus asks for,” by the Holy Eucharist. The Host has become indispensable to my life; I should wish never to leave it for the sake of sacerdotal souls [priests]. Too many of them are satisfied with being Sacrificers and exercise their sacred functions without steeping them enough in the Priestly Spirit, that is, without themselves becoming truly Victims at the same times as Sacrificers, and so God wills that legions of souls who are truly Victims offer themselves as humble supplements for what certain priests are lacking in the Priestly Spirit. Their example is Mary, the Mother of Jesus.”
Offering for Priests
“To offer yourself for souls is beautiful and great,” wrote Mother Deluil Martiny, “but to offer yourself for the souls of priests is so beautiful, so great, that you would have to have a thousand lives and offer your heart a thousand times. . . . I would gladly give my life if only Christ could find in priests what he is expecting from them. I would gladly give it even if just one of them could perfectly realize God’s divine plan for him.”
The Blessed Virgin Mary United to the Victimal Priesthood of Her Son
Marie Deluil Martiny presents the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of Christ the Victim Priest and of all who are called to follow Him in the way of His Victimal Priesthood. By her most intimate and perfect participation in the Victimal Priesthood of her Son, the Blessed Virgin Mary is both Coredemptrix and Mediatrix. She is the Virgo sacerdotalis, sacerdotal, not by virtue of sacramental ordination, but by virtue of her unique and entire adhesion to the Sacrifice of Christ. - A Life Offered for Priests

The above information provides the basis that led to the approval of the prayer devotion: “Mary Virgin Priest, pray for us” by Pope St. Pius X in 1906?
Fr. Francis Marsden, 36 yrs a priest of 36 years with a Cambridge chemistry doctorate puts it this way:

As a Catholic priest, when I saw this question, I thought it was untrue. It’s forty years since I started theological studies, and I don’t remember ever seeing a prayer which addressed Mary as Virgin Priest.
The expression made me rather uncomfortable, especially in the modern context of agitation for the ordination of women.
However, the questioner turns out to be correct. There was a prayer for priests issued in 1906 which uses the expression “Maria, Virgo Sacerdos, ora pro nobis.”
The rationale quotes St Antoninus: “although you (Mary) did not receive the Sacrament of Order, you were full in dignity and grace of whatever is given by it.” You are therefore rightly hailed as Virgin Priest.
It was a prayer which the Daughters of the Heart of Jesus were accustomed to recite in their churches. That’s a religious order I’ve not heard of.
Back in 1906 nobody would have thought of women becoming priests, whereas now it’s all the rage to campaign for it. So I doubt that such a prayer would today obtain official approval.
Just to make sure, in 1916 the Holy Office prohibited pictures of Mary shown in Mass vestments.
Denominations which have ordained women to their priesthood might have less qualms about this expression Virgo Sacerdos. - What is the basis of St. Pius X in 1906 that led to the approval of the prayer devotion; “Mary Virgin Priest, pray for us”?

Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, OFMCap, Pontifical Household Preacher states that the invocation is officially not permitted publicly!
Cardinal Raniero Cantalamessa O.F.M. Cap. (born July 22, 1934) is an Italian Catholic cardinal and priest in the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin and a theologian. He has served as the Preacher to the Papal Household since 1980, under Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. Pope Francis raised him to the rank of cardinal on 28 November 2020.

"First of all I would like to refer to the question of the title of priest attributed to the Virgin in tradition. A writer of the end of the fifth century calls Mary "Virgin, and at the same time priest, and altar who has given us Christ -- bread of Heaven for the remission of sins." After this, there were frequent references to the topic of Mary as priest, which subsequently became the object of theological developments in the 17th century, in the French school of St. Sulpice. In it, Mary's priesthood is not placed so much in the context of a relationship with the ministerial priesthood, but rather with that of Christ."
At the end of the 19th century a true and proper devotion to the Virgin-priest spread, and St. Pius X even accorded an indulgence to its relative practice. However, when the danger was perceived of confusing the priesthood of Mary with the ministerial priesthood, the magisterium of the Church became reticent and two interventions of the Holy Office practically put an end to such devotion.
After the council, the priesthood of Mary is still spoken of, but it is no longer linked to the ministerial priesthood nor to the supreme priesthood of Christ, but rather to the universal priesthood of the faithful. As figure and first fruits of the Church, she possessed in a personal way that "royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9), that all the baptized possess in a collective way. - Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, OFM Cap, Pontifical Household Preacher.

Decree of April 8,1916:

Decretum
Circa  Imagines Exhibentes BeatIssimam Virginem Mariam Indutan Sacerdotalibus.
Cum recentioribus praesertim temporibus pingi atque diffundi coepissent imagines exhibentes Beatissimam Virginem Mariam indutam vestibus sacerdotalibus, Emi ac Rmi DD. Cardinales Inquisitores Generales, re diligenter perpensa, fer. iv, die 15 ianuarii 1913, decreverunt: « imaginem B. M. Virginis vestibus sacerdotalibus indutae esse reprobandam ».
Feria vero iv, die 29 martii 1916, huiusmodi Decretum publicandum mandarunt.
Datum Romae, ex aedibus S. Officii, die 8 aprilis 1916.
Aloisius Castellano, & R. et U. I. Notarius.


What does "Catechetical Formula" mean? I ran across the phrase in this question, and a Google search just keeps bringing me to the Ten Commandments example found in the link on the question. I'm not finding a definition anywhere.  So what is a "Catechetical Formula"?

A Catechetical Formula is reliable or time-tested or traditional way of explaining some aspect of faith. For example, when you see someone quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this site, they are reciting what amounts to a catechetical formula.
Doing this is called Catechesis:

Catechesis is the act of handing on the Word of God intended to inform the faith community and candidates for initiation into the Church about the teachings of Christ, transmitted by the Apostles to the Church.
Catechesis also involves the lifelong effort of forming people into witnesses to Christ and opening their hearts to the spiritual transformation given by the Holy Spirit.
A catechism is the name given to a written work that contains a summary of all the beliefs of the faith that is used as a teaching tool.

Some catechesis is aimed at younger children, some is aimed at adults in RCIA. The entire Baltimore Catechism is a comprehensive listing of such formulas. It keeps the questions and answers simple, so that even young children can understand. Here is what one such "formula" looks like:

Q. 340. Was Jesus Christ always man?
A. Jesus Christ was not always man, but became man at the time of His Incarnation.

Many of the people visiting this site are looking for catechetical formulas: ways of explaining an aspect of their faith to someone else. For example, when Peter asked Why is Good Friday called Good? ("Is there a very obvious way to explain to someone..."), he was looking for a catechetical formula. In my answer, I recited one formula, and then tried to develop two more - the first was adjustable and aimed at a co-worker, the second one was simple, something a child might readily remember to say to a classmate.


Is Christianity the sum of the actions and beliefs of its adherents or a set of actions and beliefs defined by the Bible? This question is closely related to those regarding the definition of a Christian that was also discussed on the meta site here and here.  While I consider that question answered and outside the scope of this site (as discussed in Meta), it seems that there is still room for this tangent.  Quite apart from what individuals are labeled as Christian, is Christianity the sum of the actions and beliefs of its adherents or a set of actions and beliefs defined by the Bible?

Background: I recently referred an acquaintance to an article describing differences between Jews and Christians.  I (converting to Judaism) said that I thought the article pointed out important differences between Christianity and Judaism.  He (a Christian) said that he thought the article pointed out the differences between some Christians and some Jews.  Obviously he is correct in his observation, but, by doing the latter, the article was (to my mind) also doing the former.

This question is very subjective as it appears you are trying to separate what Christianity is from what its adherents do, and that is very tricky.

Jesus had a vision of God's message that he understood very well.  Then he gave the pieces of the mosaic to his apostles, and taught some parts to his disciples.

They then tried to recreate the picture that Jesus understood.

So, they passed those pieces on to use in the form of writings, but many of these came from disciples of those Jesus taught.

So, we now have thousands of different groups each claiming to have reconstructed the picture, but each one is very different, as some will have put different ones in the center, and most will have some pieces left out of the image as unneeded.

So, when you ask what is Christianity, both can be seen as Christianity, there are the teachings, but how those are applied in the real-world shows whether the teachings are reasonable to follow, and so likely to be true.  If you teach a belief that no one can follow at all, then it is probably not a true teaching, but just a theory on how to live life.

So, in the US, we have Christian groups that teach hatred, and teach that treating those not of their particular faith as being less important, unless they can be converted.

This would seem to fly in the face of Jesus' teachings of loving enemies more than ourselves (not something Jesus stated directly, but can be inferred), and being willing to die for those that persecute us.  But, these followers can seem to be happy with making this unreasonable loving part less important, or redefining it.

But, to an outsider, this is Christianity.  To those on the inside they may state it isn't, but if anyone group claims to be Christian then the entire teachings of Christ are judged by the actions of the claimants.

This is why Fulton Sheen stated that people don't hate Roman Catholicism, they hate what they think Roman Catholicism is.  People see something and may misinterpret, and so they hate this religion because of what they see, and what they may misunderstand, but to those within the Church they will see it differently and so not understand why people will judge the religion so harshly.  I am not trying to defend the RCC, but to use it as an example, btw.


What is the difference between Calvinist "nature" and "nature" in the sense of the Hypostatic union? In Christ, one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human.

This is called the Hypostatic Union. The following quoted points explain the relevant details of what the Hypostatic Union is and what it entails. They have been obtained from a Google search, and from a major Church that accepts the Hypostatic Union.

  in Christ the two natures, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person. They are not joined in a moral or accidental union (Nestorius), nor commingled (Eutyches), and nevertheless they are substantially united. (article)
  The union in Christ is not a union of two natures directly with one another, but a union of the two in one hypostasis; thus they are distinct yet inseparable, and each acts in communion with the other. (article)
  "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity." Thus everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity." (CCC468)
  Obviously there can be only one infinite being, only one God. [...] God is a simple being or substance excluding every kind of composition, physical or metaphysical. (article)
  Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but cooperate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation. Christ's human will "does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will." (CCC475)
  the Word was joined with humanity (Col. 2:9).  Jesus' divine nature was not altered.  Also, Jesus is not merely a man who "had God within Him" nor is he a man who "manifested the God principle." He is God in flesh, second person of the Trinity. (carm.org article)

Note that the human nature is not absorbed or assumed into the Divine nature. Instead, it is assumed by the Divine Person of Christ. A human being is not assumed by a Divine being, a human nature is assumed by a Divine Person.

Above I am describing certain key features of the Hypostatic Union. There is no argument that the Hypostatic Union is the correct way to see Christ. I think it is, but that is not what this question is about.

My limited understanding of the Calvinist view of the two human natures is as follows:

Calvinists believe that if we are saved, we have "two warring natures". One of these natures is the sanctified nature, and the other is the non-sanctified nature. I have heard these described as two separate wills. I have also heard of these described quite generally as two "parts". (I do not understand what it means for a nature to be a "part" of a person, except in the partless sense of the Hypostatic Union, described above).

This Calvinist view sounds familiar, because (according to the Hypostatic Union) in Christ there are two natures and two wills. But they are never "at war" in Christ: Christ's human nature always and entirely submits to His Divine nature.

Is the Calvinist use of "nature" the same as the use when talking about the human and Divine natures of Christ? If they are different, by virtue of what exactly are they different? Is what Calvinists describe some form of hypostasis, and if not, what is the relation, if any?

Regeneration, initiated by new birth, is the Evangelical belief that when a person believes in Christ they are mystically united into Christ.  Their old nature dies in him and a new nature is born.  Rebirth, or regeneration is when the image of God is restored within a sinner. Calvin thought of it more in the fullest sense of continuing into sanctification and resurrection of the body. Typically Protestants in terms of the doctrinal mechanics of regeneration identify is as the inward renewal beginning with justification by faith and continuing through the process of sanctification.

The two natures we are talking about are simply 'ourselves' sanctified and those aspects of ourselves not sanctified.  These two parts of ourselves war against each other.  That is why, for example, Paul say's:

  So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. (Galatians 5:16-17, NIV)

In a completely absolutely different sense, a human being was assumed into a divine being, so that two fully different natures subsist in the incarnation.  There is no parallel of the incarnation with sanctification, so the question seems to be an identification of a gross ignorance of regeneration. It is actually equivalent to a question someone asked Jesus:

  You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again. ’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
   “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.
   “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? (John 3:7-10, NIV)

The best way I can explain it to a person that considers water baptism as the initiation into God's kingdom, rather then personal faith, is to say: 'Imagine everything you think that happens in water baptism happens when a person believes in Christ.' The resulting two natures, sanctified and not sanctified, is the Protestant understanding of the two natures after regeneration initiated by faith in Christ.


How does Calvinism explain how an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent creator could NOT have a plan for universal salvation? In the haze of discerning truth and wisdom by the hybrid application of scripture, tradition, philosophy, and experience it seems illogical that a loving creator with perfect and complete knowledge could be considered incapable or unmotivated to ensure the eventual salvation of all His created earthly beings.

On the poles of the Christian salvation continuum are:

Originating a fully comprehensive blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and intended usurping of the throne of heaven, earning total never-ending removal from all of the Godheads' presence and power;

through to,

An utterly sinless existence both by inheritance and behaviour, leading to eternal companionship with the Almighty intimate as the Apple of His eye.

Within this continuum is the immortal human range of states wherein a sinful nature inherited from Adam's sinful act distances us at birth from communion with YHWH permanently.

By degrees however, according to the outcome of the function of personal sinful behaviour, belief, proffering of faith, acceptance of grace, and works within faith the temporal and physical degree of separation is reduced: primarily post earthly existence.

The book of Revelations in particular seems to support this with reference to souls currently crying out for justice and awaiting the return of the Lamb, and the unrepentant crying out for mercy.

It then details the process of judgement from the second coming, the sweeping away of the old creation, day of judgement, culminating in the universal bending of every knee in declaration of Christ's sovereignty.

Finally Revelations describes the new creation as free from pain or blemish with a clear distinction between those that live in the continuous immediate presence of the LORD within the city and those peoples living in the lands beyond the city walls.

Therefore universal salvation is really more a theological compound of differential eschatology wherein degrees of punishment by separation from YHWH resolve at different rates into redemption at varying degrees of everlasting proximity / intimacy with the Trinity.

In the light of this how can Calvinism defend a doctrine of predestination as regards selective eternal damnation by default?  Does universalism move towards a theology of purgatory unpalatable to Calvinism?

I will first concisely explain the traditional Arminian and Calvinist views, directly addressing (in bold type) the OP's question in the section on Calvinism. I will then introduce one helpful and popular way of comparing the distinctions between traditional Arminian, Calvinist, and Universalist views. At last, I will provide two example alternate views, though there many more.
Calvinism and Arminianism function as internally-consistent rational systems for explaining how God can allow some certain people to become condemned ultimately.
Arminianism
Arminianism remains consistent because it claims that God loves everyone unconditionally, but is unable to save everyone he loves because his character prevents him from infringing upon human will (which assumes that it is not possible to save everyone without infringing upon human will).
Calvinism
Calvinism remains consistent because it claims that God is in fact able to save everyone (regardless of human will), but he has chosen to hate some people in order to demonstrate his glory through wrath and to save other people in order to demonstrate his glory through grace. Thus, he chooses to not save everyone from condemnation. God is not omnibenevolent in the unlimited way in which the OP is using it; God is benevolent to all creatures for some of the time, and some creatures all of the time, but not all creatures all of the time. His wrath as well as his mercy exists to demonstrate his glory.
These are the two most-popular integral Protestant non-Universalist solutions to the dilemma.
Thomas Talbott's Propositions
Thomas Talbott states the above synopses of Arminianism and Calvinism in other words, via his now-famous propositions:

(1) It is God's redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore his will) to reconcile all sinners to himself;
(2) It is within God's power to achieve his redemptive purpose for the world;
(3) Some sinners will never be reconciled to God, and God will therefore either consign them to a place of eternal punishment, from which there will be no hope of escape, or put them out of existence altogether.
If this is indeed an inconsistent set of propositions, as I believe it is, then at least one of the propositions is false. Calvinists reject proposition (1); Arminians reject proposition (2); and universalists reject proposition (3).

(See "The Inescapable Love of God" by Thomas Talbott for more.)
Two Examples of Views Which Are Neither Arminian, Calvinist, nor Universalist
C.S. Lewis' View
It is interesting at this point to note here that C.S. Lewis, in "The Great Divorce", takes something similar in kind to the Arminian view, but changes it sufficiently to make up a rather distinct view. He attempts to show how God never gives up on redeeming souls, so long as there is hope. God provides the means of salvation for perhaps millennia after our deaths, and does not operate his will to condemn anyone ultimately, but, despite his grace, many people will reach a point, by the operation of their own wills, from which God in his foreknowledge knows they will not return. Once that point is reached, in God's wisdom, he will, as it were, "close the gates of Heaven", in order that his grace will not be mocked without end. This results in a view that has aspects of all three primary systems: repentance after death (from Universalism), humans willing themselves into ultimate condemnation (from Arminianism), and God ultimately refusing his grace to certain people (from Calvinism). I find this to be an elegant way to resolve the Biblical and theological difficulties.
Molinism
Molinism is another attempt to reconcile the difficulties between Scriptural texts which seem apparently Arminian and texts which seem apparently Calvinist. (This view is quite popular among, for example, Baptists.) It centers around the concept of "Middle Knowledge". "Middle Knowledge" is the theoretical knowledge of not only all that has happened, all that is happening, and all that shall happen, but all that could happen and all that could have happened. Molinism asserts that "Middle Knowledge" is indeed possible, and that since it is possible, God of course has it and he takes this knowledge into account in his work of redeeming Creation. The result is that God, before the foundation of the world, peered into all possible timelines and saw the best timeline for maximum salvation (and/or maximum glory, depending upon whether one prefers the Arminian or the Calvinist view of God's goal); he then determined from before time who he would save and who he would condemn, making both a sovereign pronouncement of his grace and an affirmation of humans' use of the power of volition which he willed to grant them.


Prior to the burning bush event - what was Moses's knowledge of God? We know that he went to live with the Egyptians from a young age to the age of more or less 40. He then lived in Midean for another 40. It seems that there was no contact with other Israelites. Or was there a role played by his father in law?

There is only speculation as to who told moses what, and when. The bible doesn't say whether there was any contact between moses and his biological family after he was weaned and taken back to Pharoah's daughter (until he was joined by his brother Aaron and his sister Miriam in Egypt, when he went to face the Pharoah). He did know that the Israelite slaves were his brethren; but who told him? Pharoah's daughter knew Moses' sister, Miriam, and possibly her mother. One of them could have visited him and told him his family history and of God.

Jethro was the priest of the Midianites. Midian was one of Abraham's six sons by Keturah, whom he married after Sarah died. Jethro was most likely a priest of the God of Abraham, being one of his direct descendants. It is very likely that Jethro told him about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their God, when he lived with him for 40 years.


What encyclical upheld God's sovereignty over the regularity of natural laws? Somewhere in my readings (I forget exactly where) I came across the following chain of events:

The Philosophy of Aristotle regarding the regularity of science --- scientific laws can be relied upon for future predictions --- acquired acceptance in the Catholic Church thanks to St. Thomas Aquinas.
The philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas acquired great deference, to the point of being mentioned very favorably in a council decree.
Science gained prominence as a reliable explanation of many aspects of the world.
Someone(?) proposed that God had setup the material world to obey the scientific laws, and that therefore those laws could not be violated, even by God.
Against this, the Pope of the time issued some kind of document saying that God is sovereign, and is not Himself bound by the regular laws he established for nature, and that therefore He is free to act independent of these laws in specific instances (or to abrogate them entirely?).

I am looking for the name of the encyclical (or other similar document) mentioned in (5).  Hopefully someone will have its name.
Thanks!

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, dogmatic constitution Dei Filius on faith & reason, canons on God the Creator of all things:

Canon 5. If any one confess not that the world, and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, have been, in their whole substance, produced by God out of nothing; or shall say that God created, not by his will, free from all necessity, but by a necessity equal to the necessity whereby he loves himself [e.g., a logical necessity]; or shall deny that the world was made for the glory of God: let him be anathema.

Cf. also Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis ¶¶16-17.

Addressing your specific questions:
Yes, St. Thomas Aquinas's philosophy and theology has great authority in the Catholic Church, as testified by numerous popes; his Summa Theologica was even placed on the altar, alongside the Bible, at the Council of Trent!
The notion of a physical law is explained very well in ch. 10 "Physical Laws" of The Physical System of St. Thomas (1893) by G. M. Cornoldi, S.J.
The Catholic physicist Pierre Duhem (1861-1916) describes modern physics's narrower conception of "physical law" in Aim & Structure of Physical Theory (La théorie physique: Son objet, sa structure 1906) pt. 2, ch. 4.On how more modern philosophers of science conceive physical laws, cf. Aristotle's Revenge (2018), §3.3 "How the laws of nature lie (or at least engage in mental reservation)" by Thomist philosopher Ed Feser.
Neither definition turns the laws of physics into logical necessities. God is free to create however He chooses (as long as it does not imply a contradiction); cf. Summa Contra Gentiles II ch. 23 "That God does not act by natural necessity".
Ancient Greek philosophers didn't distinguish theology from natural philosophy, thinking that the universe was an extension of God (pantheism). This led to believing that the universe (and its laws) could only be one way. Catholics believe that God and the universe are distinct, so theology (the study of God) and natural philosophy (the study of the physical world) are distinct disciplines, too; this freed ancient thought from its closed-minded dogmatism, enabling science to progress and not be "stillborn" (as physicist and theologian Stanley L. Jaki, O.S.B. calls pre-Christian-era science in Savior of Science).
See also Fr. Jaki's Miracles & Physics and St. Thomas's Summa Contra Gentiles, lib. 3 cap. 101 on the three types of miracles, miracles being "works that are sometimes done by God outside the usual order assigned to things".


What is the Biblical basis for considering Satan the author of evil? Satan in Job seems to be characterized as a servant of the Lord and in Isaiah Lucifer is mentioned as a destroyer of cities. It's never really clear why evil exists. In a couple places in the Old Testament it is mentioned that God is all good. So what's the Biblical basis for believing that evil comes from the devil?

While the Old Testament introduces Satan and portrays him as:

Inciting David to sin by taking an unauthorized census (1 Chronicles 21:1)
Accusing Job of only walking uprightly because of the many blessings he had received from God (Job 1) and tormenting him when given the opportunity (Job 2)
Accusing Joshua the High Priest (Zechariah 3:1-2)

It doesn't go into anywhere near the level of detail that the New Testament provides regarding this particular being. One of the things we can see in Matthew's account of the Temptation of Christ in the Wilderness is that Satan is alternatively identified as "the devil" and described as "the tempter". This identification is also made explicit in the following verses in Revelation:

The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. - Revelation 12:9 NIV
He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. - Revelation 20:2 NIV

"That ancient serpent" is an allusion to the serpent in the Garden of Eden - the original tempter.
Elsewhere, we see references to "the evil one","the god of this age" and "...the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient." (Ephesians 2:2) which from context all refer to the same being. Given that basis, an additional key passage that is relevant to answering your question is John 8:44 -

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

So in summary, the Bible - and more specifically the New Testament - asserts that Satan is "the father of lies", "is now at work in those who are disobedient" and "leads the whole world astray" and by nature "was a murderer from the beginning"; Given this basis, a designation of "author of evil" does seem appropriate for Satan.
Unfortunately your additional questions regarding where and why evil exists go beyond the scope of what can adequately be addressed on this site without resorting to primarily-opinion-based answers.


Ten commandments contradiction Does the new testament override, or replace the commandment of honor your mother and father, and thy shall not murder?

No, but Jesus reaffirms these. In Matthew 19:16-19, He tells the rich young ruler,

  And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed
  must I do to have eternal life?”

  And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is
  only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”

  He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder,
  You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear
  false witness,

  Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as
  yourself.”


Is Jesus using a rhetorical device when he says "turn the other cheek"? I would like to know how to best interpret "turning the other cheek".

I think that it is reasonable to assume that Jesus is using a rhetorical tactic, in much the same way as he does when he says you should "hate" your mother and father, "let the dead bury the dead" and so on. Is this the most common interpretation? Is Jesus merely saying that we shouldn't seek revenge, or is he advocating pacifism?

Assuming you are referring to Matthew 5:38-42 (NIV) :

  38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for
  tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone
  strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if
  someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak
  as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two
  miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the
  one who wants to borrow from you.

You could explain this rhetoric, but if we look at the examples He uses, it does not have to be rhetoric but can also be literally. Let's take a look:

If someone hits you on the right cheek, the attacker hopes he won with just one hit (this was usually a hit with the back of the right hand, not very hard, just to scare you off) . If you fight back, you are as low as your attacker, if you do nothing (which he aims for), he wins. However, Jesus tells here: "turn to him the other also". How would the attacker feel right now? He did not win, and he has to hit a second time (this time really on purpose, and if he hits he can now hit hard. (try it once, back of your right hand on someone's right cheek, if he turns his head so you can hit the left you can hit full power)

The second example Jesus gives, is similar. Back in the days of Jesus people wore most of the time only two pieces of clothing, your  tunic and a cloak. If someone asks for your tunic, you know you are naked under your cloak. Which, again, hurts only you and will give you won. But if you do also give your cloak, how would the one requesting for the tunic feel now?

The third example Jesus gives, is similar as well. If you were forced to walk one mile (usually by the legal power), a soldier would go with you to check whether you walked the mile. (often you had to carry a burden as well, but anyways) When you walk just the mile, it hurts only you and you have accepted your punishment. However when you walk an extra mile the soldier checking you walked the mile had a problem, he was not allowed to punish you more than the he was ordered to.

Is Jesus merely saying that we shouldn't seek revenge, or is he advocating pacifism?
I would say Jesus is indeed saying that we should not seek revenge. He challenges us to be smarter than your opponent(probably not the right word) and show them that you are not controlled by him, and therefore not do whatever they tell you, but live for the living God.


Why didn't Protestants argue for traditional marriage by natural reason? The US Supreme Court recently ruled that Homosexual couples can get married in all US States and that these marriages are legally equal to the Traditional model of marriage, one man and one woman. Prior to all this I saw many Christians arguing against the redefinition of marriage, but almost solely used their faith and the Bible as their basis.

There are arguments against the idea of homosexual marriages being not equal to heterosexual ones. They more or less revolve around the idea that the reproductive system is the only part of the human body that needs a complementary body to unite with to complete and achieve its end (or purpose). Any other union that cannot complete the system and therefore possibly achieve the purpose of sex is inherently incomplete.

My question is this: Why didn't Christians argue this way? I am Catholic and I have seen my own church reason this way. Why did Protestants not use this, as this could carry weight in a secular court?

"Protestant" means a believer in sola fide and sola Scriptura. As such, not only is it possible for a Protestant to use natural law arguments, many have. Although most of the reformers were Divine Command theorists (Luther and Calvin, although Calvin is weird), not all were (natural law was influential among both the Catholic and Protestant American Founders, although with a clear Lockean (Divine Command) influence as well). Many Protestants today are natural law theorists, although not all are.

For information on the Founding Fathers: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=5&article=1001&context=naturallaw_proceedings&type=additional

For an article on Protestants and Catholics regarding Natural Law: http://www.firstthings.com/article/1992/01/002-protestants-and-natural-law

Christi pax.


What event does Revelation 17:16, 17 refer to according to Mormons? This is a follow-up to my other question about the meaning of the "harlot" and the "scarlet coloured beast" mentioned in Revelation 17:3-5.

In this case I wanted to ask about verses 16 and 17 where the beast attacks the harlot. These verses read as follows in KJV:

  16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat
  her flesh, and burn her with fire. 17 For God hath put in their
  hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto
  the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

Presumably the above verses and the context refer to something that was still in the future from John's day because the preceding verses 10-14 say the following about the kings (particularly the parts I marked in bold text) , according to KJV:

  10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. 11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. 12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. 13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. 14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. (emphasis added)

According to LDS church, what event are verses 16 and 17 referring to?

Update: I wanted to ask this question because the student manual linked to in the answer to the previous question did not state what event this attack was a reference to. As a side note, since these "10 kings" that destroy the "harlot" also fight against "the Lamb", both events (i.e. the destruction of the harlot and the battle against the Lamb) probably will happen during end-times

Depperm pointed you to the student manual in the other question. Here it is again:

https://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-student-manual/revelation/chapter-56-revelation-17-22?lang=eng

I don't suppose you were satisfied with what is written there.

Mormons really don't take official positions on such questions very much, as a church.

The general teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is to believe in Jesus Christ, to repent, etc.

Beyond that is pretty much up to the individual to learn through study and prayer.

If one individual member finds some parallel between the ten horns and the harlot being made desolate, and certain events in history, that member should pray for further understanding and instruction. The instruction received should be treated as sacred, not as doctrine to show off or try to convince others that they should believe, because it was given to an individual.

In other words, there really isn't an answer that a Mormon could give you and say, "This is what Mormons believe."

(afterthought:)
This is a little bit about the general approach to prophecies in Mormon thought.

I noticed a related question that had been closed for being a bit too controversial, apparently trying to tie recent events to apocalyptic revelation, and someone pointed out that seven-of-three-of-a-committee sorts of events can be seen in many of the organizations of the world.

Many of the prophecies are considered by Mormons more as patterns than as specific fore-tellings. 1 Nephi 19: 23, 24 might help with this concept. And there is a Church magazine article ( The Ensign, March 2009, Likening the Scriptures to Our Personal Lives ) that talks about the idea in more depth.

And there is a reference page on signs that sort of speaks to the idea that signs are less about making people believe and more about helping believers figure out what to do next.

Sorry that I didn't think to bring this to the table in my first try at an answer.
(end-afterthought)

So, if a well-known Mormon some eighty or so years ago gave it as his opinion that verses 16 and 17 indicated historical events many centuries ago, it would not preclude a repeat of similar circumstances in our time.

I could tell you what I used to think about the woman and the ten horns, and that would be an opinion I used to sort of think might be the case, but I've since seen other interpretations that work as well, so I'll just say, if it's important to you, ask God.

Sorry.


In what sense do faith and hope remain? In 1 Corinthians 13, the Apostle Paul discusses various different spiritual gift, explaining that most of them will be redundant in the New Creation, and therefore "fade away". He concludes his teaching by saying:

  And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. 1 Corithians 13:13

I can see how love will remain in the New Creation. But without the need to persevere through suffering, and seeing Jesus face-to-face, would faith and hope also no longer be required, and also fade away?

How would a Reformed Protestant understand faith and hope remaining?

Richard Ostella, pastor of Westminster Reformed Church and adjunct professor at Michigan Theological Seminary, wrote a series of articles The Excellence of Christian Love on 1 Cor 12:31-13:13.  The last article, 14. Heaven: A World of Love with Faith and Hope (1 Cor. 13:13), has quotes from well-published and respected Reformed scholar D.A. Carson who wrote a 1987 book Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 which includes detailed exegesis used by Richard Ostella.
Both scholars point out that although "and now" in 1 Cor 13:13 can be understood temporally (where faith is contrasted with sight per 2 Cor 5:7 and hope is swallowed up in realization per Rom 8:24-25), "and now" can also be understood logically to mean "and thus" or "therefore".
Skipping further exegetical portion to the conclusion, here's quotes from Richard Ostella's article (emphasis mine):

EXPLANATION (WHAT IT MEANS FOR THESE THREE TO ABIDE FOREVER)
Carson says some helpful things about hope and faith as “eternal, permanent virtues” (Showing the Spirit 75). With regard to hope, he states, “there is a sense in which hope is not merely the anticipation of the blessings to come, an anticipation no longer needed once those blessings have arrived, but a firm anchor in Christ himself. Our hope is in God, in Christ; and as such, hope continues forever, doubtless opening up an infinity of new depths of blessing, world without end” (74). So he asks the penetrating question, “Will we stop looking forward in anticipation to what is ahead once we begin to enjoy the new heaven and the new earth?” (74). The implied answer is obvious, “no we will not stop looking forward in anticipation.” With regard to faith he comments, “It is true that in one sense faith will be displaced by sight. But there is another sense in which faith is simply thankful trust in God, deep appreciation for him, committed subservience to him. Will there be any time in the next fifty billion years (if I may speak of eternity in the categories of time) during which the very basis of my presence in the celestial courts will be something other than faith in the grace of God?” (74-75).
Carson makes a great point here about “an infinity of new depths of blessings, world without end” that will continue out in front of us forever. There is a richness of glory beyond words. Or put another way, there is a richness to come in glory about which our words will be “in a perpetual state of beginning.” We will always find ourselves in the awesome wonder of knowing that we are only beginning to scratch the surface of what God has prepared for us.
This sounds like an incompleteness of knowing akin to that developed in verses 8-12. But perhaps this informs us that the contrast of the now and the not yet is not exactly one of incompleteness to completeness but of very immature and dim incompleteness in contrast to mature and face to face “incompleteness.”
Incompleteness here is perhaps over stating in a way that does not keep in flow with verses 8-12. For in heaven, it is all there before us “face to face” but our grasp of the depths will be such that “an infinity of new depths” of glory will be forever at our finger tips. So, to try to avoid confusing knowing in part to knowing fully we have to stress the fact that the partial refers to a circumscribed and limited content regarding what may be known. Even with sixty-six books, what may be known objectively of special revelation is limited. But perfection will involve unlimited content as we behold the Lord in all His glory face to face. For Luther, our present state is like seeing the sun through a cloud because we cannot bear to look at the Lord’s brilliant majesty but the cloud will be removed and the Lord will unveil Himself (Cited by C. Brown, Miracles, 14).
This fact that hope abides into the unending future is a marvelous thought in itself. It is part of the blessing of heaven that the entry point is not a terminal point but a beginning point that opens a vast array of infinite blessings before our wondering eyes. Therefore, one of the good things of heaven is the fact that we will always have hope because there will always be things to anticipate, new depths to plummet, and new heights to scale. A fundamental quality of heaven will be expectation of greater things still to come. A profound experience of expectation will give a spring to every step that is taken in the heavenly realm.
Before this study of 1 Corinthians 13, I tended to think that the first step in heaven is the one that carries with it the greatest sense of anticipation and expectation. But this text shows us that our anticipation of the first step we will take in heaven is far lower and inferior to the anticipation that will fill our hearts to the brim beyond that first step. This is so because our expectation now is in part, immature, and dimly lit. Once we take that first step in glory into the presence of our Lord and to seeing face to face, then every subsequent step will be filled with face to face anticipation and expectation that is far superior to the dimly lit anticipation and expectation that we now have.


Scripture against obscenity Possible Duplicate:
  What does the Bible say about "bad" words?

I know that swearing and using obscenity is wrong, but I'm curious what exactly are the Scriptures that support this.  Is there any Scripture that clearly states that using obscenity is wrong? or is swearing/blaspheming/obscenity wrong because it violates key values and doctrines of Christianity?

The Bible prevents obscenity in many cases. Keep in mind that speech is a gift from God, so we must ask ourselves how he use this gift. Also, using obscenity usually shows what is in heart. Here are some verses that support this:

Ephesians 5:3,4

  But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or
  of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for
  God’s holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or
  coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.

Ephesians 4:31

  Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along
  with every form of malice.

Psalms 19:14

  May these words of my mouth and this meditation of my heart    be
  pleasing in your sight,    LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.

Luke 6:45

  A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart,
  and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his
  heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.