What is the consequence of being baptized twice, according to the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church teaches that once a person is baptized, they cannot (or must not) be baptized again.  I'm asking this question in that context, looking for a Catholic answer.
What is the consequence or effect of being baptized a second time?
Generally, if there is any concern that a person may have been baptized before, a conditional baptism may be used, in essence saying "This is a baptism only if you haven't been baptized before."  I'm not asking about a conditional baptism.  I'm asking about one proper baptism, followed by another proper baptism.
Here's an example of how this situation could come up:

Susie is raised in an atheist family.  As an adult, she becomes a Christian and goes to her local priest to be baptized.  He asks if she was ever baptized before, and she says she never was, believing this to be true.  The priest baptizes her.
Later, Susie discovers that her parents weren't always the strict atheists they are today, and that when she was an infant, they had her baptized (in a way the Catholic church would consider valid).

What would the priest tell Susie when she asks about the consequences or effects of her second baptism?

Nothing.
The Code of Canon Law states:

Every person not yet baptized and only such a person is able to be baptized.

(Canon 864; emphasis added)
Here's what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about baptism and why it can only be received once:

Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

(Catechism, paragraph 1272)
In other words, baptism (the first time) marks a person out as belonging to Christ. It is a consequence of this marking (the "seal" of Baptism) that a person is made part of the Body of Christ, purified from original sin, and given justifying and sanctifying grace:

Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte "a new creature," an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature," member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.
(paragraph 1265)
The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:

enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;

giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;

allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.

(paragraph 1266)
The baptized have become "living stones" to be "built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood" By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light." Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.
(paragraph 1268)

If someone is inadvertently re-baptized, nothing particular happens. The person has already been marked out as part of Christ's flock; has already been made part of the Mystical Body of Christ. A second baptism has no effect on that:

Baptism imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual sign, the character, which consecrates the baptized person for Christian worship. Because of the character Baptism cannot be repeated.

(Catechism, paragraph 1280)
No penalty or censure is attached by the Church to conferring or receiving a second baptism (inadvertently or otherwise); however, the importance the Church places on baptizing only once can be seen in their instructions (in the Code of Canon Law) to priests on baptizing those who might possibly have been baptized before (including in another Christian community whose baptism is recognized as valid):

Canon 869 §1. If there is a doubt whether a person has been baptized or whether baptism was conferred validly and the doubt remains after a serious investigation, baptism is to be conferred conditionally.

[That is, the priest is required to carry out a thorough investigation, and if after that the priest has any reason at all to believe that the person might possibly have been baptized, he is to give only a conditional baptism—saying not "I baptize you" but instead, effectively "If you haven't been baptized, I baptize you."]

Canon 869 §2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.

[If someone has been baptized by another Christian denomination, they're presumed to have been baptized validly, and thus will not be re-baptized at all—even conditionally—unless there is serious reason to believe that the Catholic Church doesn't recognize that baptism as valid.]

Canon 869 §3. If in the cases mentioned in §§1 and 2 the conferral or validity of the baptism remains doubtful, baptism is not to be conferred until after the doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is explained to the person to be baptized, if an adult, and the reasons of the doubtful validity of the baptism are explained to the person or, in the case of an infant, to the parents.

[So if the priest determines that the person has, or may have, already been baptized, he needs to explain to the adult baptizand or to the parents just exactly why the Church considers them already baptized, and why they're going to be baptized conditionally or not at all. They have to understand what's going on and why.]

Canon 870 An abandoned infant or a foundling is to be baptized unless after diligent investigation the baptism of the infant is established.

[Even in the case where there aren't any parents available, you still have to investigate the possibility that a child might have been baptized.]
This is something the Church takes quite seriously, even though it doesn't penalize for it. To make it easier to discover whether someone has been baptized, the Church requires priests who baptize to make a record of the fact in the permanent parish record:

The parish priest of the place in which the baptism was conferred must carefully and without delay record in the register of baptism the names of the baptised, the minister, the parents, the sponsors and, if there were such, the witnesses, and the place and date of baptism. He must also enter the date and place of birth.

(Code of Canon Law, Canon 877, section 1)
And this record needs to be duplicated in the diocesan records as well:

A diocesan bishop is to take care that the acts and documents of the archives of cathedral, collegiate, parochial, and other churches in his territory are also diligently preserved and that inventories or catalogs are made in duplicate, one of which is to be preserved in the archive of the church and the other in the diocesan archive.

(Code of Canon Law, Canon 491, section 1)
Thus, even if the pastor doesn't know whether someone has been baptized, he needs to at least ask where they grew up—the chancery office (administrative division) of the diocese including that city or town will have a record of any such person being baptized.


Why was the revelation that God has the Only Begotten Son not given in the Old Testament? Of course, we have many indications to that truth in the Old Testament, but it was only with the coming of Jesus Christ that it was spoken to humans in plain language that God has the Only-begotten Son.

How is this matter explained in the Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodoxy and main-stream Protestant Christianity?

"Why was the revelation that God has the [an] Only Begotten Son not given to the ancient Hebrew people?"

There are two answers to this:  it was and it wasn't!  Answered in reverse order:

It wasn't.  Even though there are many hints, etc, that the coming saviour would be divine, these hints were not sufficient to control the thoughts of the Israelites/Jews in OT times concerning the coming saviour. Why is it that in the OT it is not made even more abundantly obvious that there is more than one person in the Triune Godhead and that the coming saviour would be the Son of God?

It needs to be remembered that in OT times all the surrounding nations worshipped a multiplicity of gods.  A main purpose in the OT is to persuade the covenant people of God that there is ONLY ONE GOD.  If the OT had spoken much about the coming Saviour being God then the temptation during the OT era would have been to suppose he would be a different god/ another god, that there is more than one God.

Once it has been established by the OT that there is only one God, the teaching of the NT about who Jesus Christ is becomes clear... he cannot be "a god" because the OT says there are no gods except the one true God.

The monotheism of the OT, then, lays the foundation stone of our understanding of the teaching of the NT concerning Christ our Lord.  In the early church of the NT period, it was heavily indoctrinated Jewish believers, heavily indoctrinated in the teachings of monotheism, who tell us that Jesus is God made flesh.  This lends much greater credibility to the teaching.  If the Jews had not been indoctrinated in monotheism then their testimony concerning the deity of Christ could have been easily explained away... in that they were heavily indoctrinated in monotheism their testimony cannot be swept away with unbelieving rationalistic explanations.

The JW teaching that Jesus is "a god" but not "the God" is the kind of teaching which the whole thrust of the OT monotheism is designed to undermine/negate.  God the Son, the Son of God, the one true God, became flesh and died for our sins. Praise Him.

"What think you of Christ? is the test,

To try both your state and your scheme;

You cannot be right in the rest,

Unless you think rightly of him.

As Jesus appears in your view,

As he is belovèd or not;

So God is disposèd to you,

And mercy or wrath are your lot.

.

Some take him a creature to be,

A man, or an angel at most;

Sure, these have not feelings like me,

Nor know themselves wretchèd and lost.

So guilty, so helpless am I,

I durst not confide in his blood,

Nor on his protection rely,

Unless I were sure he is God."

(John Newton, Pastor and former slavetrader)

It was.  It is revealed in hints, types, and shadows that the coming saviour would be the Son of God, Divine, God made flesh. Especially noteworthy are the following OT scriptures:-

See Genesis 3:15 - the one who will defeat Satan will be a man, but it is impossible that a mere man should be able to defeat Satan, therefore he will necessarily be both Man and Divine.  Job 19:25-26;  Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 9:6;  Psalm 110 - David knew the Messiah would be one of his own descendants, yet he calls Him "my Lord", knowing He would be more than just one of his descendants;  Psalm 45, the whole, esp v 6 and 7 - the Messiah will be divine; Ezekiel 44:2.


How old is the doctrine of a sinless Mary? What are the oldest known writings that state that Mary was without sin?

The earliest Christian writings outside the bible are from what are called the Church Fathers, from around the middle of the second century onwards for a few hundred years.

On the Immaculate Conception explicitly, the earliest would appear to be Hippolytus and Origen:

  He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

  This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Origen, Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

Earlier writers hint at the doctrine, by comparing Mary to Eve, who was created without the stain of sin:

  [Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, "Be it done unto me according to your word" (Luke 1:38) (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

  Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, "Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word." Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Iranaeus, Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

There are further, later comments where I found those but those are the earliest cited. These four are the earliest of the Fathers.


Why did the Bishop of Rome accept (and retains until today) the title "Pontifex Maximus" and how were the rights and duties transferred/transformed? According to the annual yearbook of the Catholic Church, the Bishop of Rome holds many other titles:

Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Province of Rome, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God.

The title Supreme Pontiff originated from a title usually held by the Roman Emperor, pontifex maximus (chief priest), whose main duty was to maintain the pax deorum (peace of the gods) by regulating expiatory sacrifices (to pagan gods) as well as administering the divine law (see wikipedia).
The first few Roman emperors who were Christian starting with Emperor Constantine still held this title, converting the title by imperial law (not church law) to make them the Head of the Church (giving Constantine the authority call the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD to settle the Arian controversy!), until Emperor Gratian gave the title to Pope Damasus I. (Source: The Title Pontifex Maximus).
Since it was a title having to do with official state religion, what was the reason that Pope Damasus accepted (and the subsequent bishops of Rome retained) the title "Pontifex Maximus" and how were the rights & duties transferred / transformed?  Related subquestions (to help form the answer only):

Why wasn't the title retired instead, since "Vicar of Jesus Christ" is the title derived from the authority given by Jesus?

What is the significance of the title today (see picture of the inscription "Benedict XVI, Pontifex Maximus")? What are the rights the current Pope enjoys and the duties that he needs to perform under this title that is not already covered by other titles?

When did the title become "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church" and what was the significance?

What does the Canon Law say about it?

Since the title originated when the Roman empire used to have an official religion (which became Christianity starting in AD 380) what is the relevance of the title in today's systems of secular governments, especially those holding the doctrine of separation of church and state?

If the title became useful as a state legal authority (as the article referenced above implies) can this title then be construed as potential interference with secular governments now that the age of Christendom has ceased?

Accepted answer should address the bold question at the minimum.

It is worth to describe in some detail that the title "Pontifex" pre-dates Christianity. According to Livius, the title was originally for (elected) high priests of the Roman religion, as mentioned in the Lex Ogulnia (300/299 BCE). The pontifex maximus was 'the greatest' or chairman of the college of the pontifices, 'priests'. They were responsible for the Roman state cult as a whole and for several cults in particular, namely the cults that had no priestly college of their own (such as the augures, the decemviri sacris faciundis and the fetiales).
In the period relevant to early Christianity, Julius Caesar was elected pontifex maximus in 63 BCE and kept the office until his death. After his death, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus became pontifex maximus (44-12 BCE); when he died, the emperor Augustus became responsible for the state cult. He also put an end to the election of the pontifices. From then on, a position in the college of pontifices was a sign of special imperial favor, comparable to a decoration in our age.
The word pontifex is sometimes explained as 'bridge builder', but is in fact related to the Etruscan word pont, 'road', and means something like 'preparer of the road'.
It should also be noted that Roman Emperors continued to bear the title Pontifex Maximus well beyond the time of establishment of the papal hierarchy (as in: the ultimate religious power of Rome was still with the emperor, not the pope). In fact, it was carried by all subsequent emperors until emperor Gratianus declined the title in 381. So the pope bearing the title pontifex maximus was not part of early Christianity. Only after Gratianus' refusal of the  title was it attributed to the pope (note that this is half a century after Christinanity became a state religion of Rome under Constantine in 313). Constantine himself actually held the title. It is frequently stated that Constantine made Christianity the only permitted religion in the empire: this is not the case, and it is also very likely the reason why Constantine did not relinquish the title to then pope Sylvester.
As to why the popes attributed themselves this title in stead of "vicar of Christ", the most obvious worldly explanation is that the title had been attributed with the highest worldly + religious title in the empire for more than 600 years.
As to what significance & privileges the title holds in today's world, I would say very little. But in the days of the empire, the Pontifex Maximus enjoyed many privileges, such as addressing the Roman Senate at will, the supervision of religious funds (of Rome, not the Vatican), authority over all public and private religious institutions, instruction of the populace in the celestial and funerary rites including appeasing the dead, and expiation of prodigies. He who held the title had political as well as religious power in Rome.
As for when did the title become "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church", the word Catholic is derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal".


What is the biblical basis for the Athanasian Creed's statement that believing in the Trinity is necessary for salvation? The Athanasian Creed states:

  Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. . . . He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

  Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

I think the biblical basis is easy to establish for the idea that believing the incarnation is necessary for salvation, but what is the biblical basis for the idea that believing in the Trinity is necessary for salvation?

Jesus himself equates salvation with knowing God:

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. - John 17:3 NIV

Elsewhere, the scriptures negate the idea that this could be a mere intellectual knowledge about God:

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. - James 2:19 NIV (cf. in context)

Instead, examining the preceding context (cf. John 14, 15 & 16) we must understand this knowing of God in terms of a relationship that includes intimate familiarity with His nature, which is revealed in the persons of Father, Son and Holy Spirit and consequently includes "believing in the Trinity":

7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?  - John 14:7-9 NIV
15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. - John 14:15-20 NIV
I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. John 15:15 NIV
When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. - John 15:26 NIV
13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you. - John 16:13-15 NIV
29 Then Jesus’ disciples said, “Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. 30 Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.” - John 16:29-30 NIV

In summary, in much of his extended discourse following the last supper, Jesus teaches his disciples regarding the persons of the Trinity with the expressed intent that they may know God; and in the midst of his "High-priestly prayer" in chapter 17, he equates knowing this God (ie the Trinity) with eternal life.


What Saints have given guided written meditations? Recently I have found meditations by St. Francis de Sales in his Introduction to the Devout life, and St Ignatius Loyola in his Spiritual Exercises, that I find have helped to deepen my faith.  Are there any other guided written meditations by other Saints?  I am looking for something more in depth than a paragraph meditation, on that really helps you to meditate on the deeper meaning.

The first book which comes in my mind at reading your question is "The Practice of the Love of Jesus Christ" of St. Alphonse de Liguori, that I highly recommand. The thoughts St Alphonse provide really deeps the faith. Furthermore, St Alphonse de Liguori likes to quote St Therese D'Avila, a very great catholic mystic.
Meditations are not guided, but the structure of the text is a self-guidance.

For a really guided meditation (step 1, 2, etc.) I obvisously think to "The Imitation of the Christ" (De imitatione Christi) but you need to find one where text structure has been kept (Chapter X - Thinking)


What's wrong with the Summa Theologica? I've heard that there were two points of Catholic doctrine in Aquinas' Summa Theologica that were later successfully defended to the contrary.  One, I think is the Immaculate Conception of Mary (although I don't know where that is in the Summa) and I'm not sure what the other one is.

Excluding things that might not exactly measure up to modern science. What are the points of doctrine in the Summa that don't line up with Eternal Law?

There are two types of errors in the Summa. The first are of the type caused by a Medieval understanding of science and biology. The second are actual theological dead ends.

The most famous of both has the first causing the second. Thomas believed that the entirety of the body was in the man's "seed". Because of this he argued that the Virgin Mary was purified from sin in the womb. The current Catholic teaching, of course, is that the purification was at conception.

After that it really does become difficult to say that there are "points of doctrine in the Summa that don't line up with Eternal Law". There are competing perspectives which have been proposed, but that does not mean that that Thomas was wrong, simply that there are other, valid views and vocabulary which have been used to express the same thought.


How were missionaries able to convert native populations? What made it possible for Christian missionnaires to convert natives of America, Africa and Asia to another religion despite the fact that they already had beliefs and gods ?

The power of the Holy Ghost

In "Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service" (the manual used by LDS missionaries) it states (in Chapter 4)

  The power of the Holy Ghost. The witness that comes to sincere
  investigators before baptism comes through the power of the Holy
  Ghost. “The power [of the Holy Ghost] can come upon one before
  baptism, and is the convincing witness that the gospel is true. It
  gives one a testimony of Jesus Christ and of his work and the work of
  his servants upon the earth” (Bible Dictionary, “Holy Ghost,” 704).
  The Holy Ghost testifies of truth. All people can know the
  truthfulness of the Book of Mormon through the power of the Holy
  Ghost. “By the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all
  things” (Moroni 10:5).

This applies to both native and non-native populations that missionaries have taught or are currently teaching.

Of course, this is not the only method used by Christian missionaries throughout history. Some Churches in the past have relied on coercion, unfortunately. But sincere and lasting conversion can only come via the power of the Holy Ghost.


What does the perpetual virginity of Mary add to our salvation? I tried this question earlier and it was closed due to so many other similar questions but, having looked through I didn't find an answer.

What, if any, is the salvific benefit of the perpetual virginity of Mary?  In other words, having been born of a virgin according to prophesy and all other parts of the life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and coming again of Christ remaining the same, is our salvation in Christ lessened in some way if Mary has moral and lawful intercourse with her husband?

Ken Graham’s fulsome answer deals almost entirely with the ‘perpetual virginity’ of Mary but I am concerned to look at the claimed role of Mary in salvation because, whether or not Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus Christ, your question deals with a biblical doctrine – salvation – whereas there is no biblical doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible is at pains to stress that Mary was a virgin when the miraculous conception took place, but is silent on such intimate matters with regard to Mary thereafter. It also has nothing to say on Mary having any part, or role, whatsoever in salvation. We may misunderstand how salvation is bestowed if we misunderstand Mary’s biblical place in the divine scheme of things. There is no mention of her being in any way involved in salvation in the early Church.

From a Roman Catholic “Encyclopedia of Theology” edited by Karl Rahner, pages 896-7, under the heading ‘Mariology’ it is shown that Mary is contrasted with Eve. As Eve's disobedience brought ruin, the faith and obedience of Mary brought salvation. Mary's claimed role in the history of salvation is compared with that of the Catholic Church. The absolute sinlessness of Mary was taught for the first time by Pelagius and Augustine, then expanded into the freedom from original sin which was then attributed to Mary. Catholic teaching is that Mary plays a vital role in bringing salvation to sinners. This Catholic Encylopedia which I consulted states that Mary:

  “…became, as Pius XII said (Constitution Ad caeli reginam, 11 October
  1954: DS 3913-17), “Queen of Heaven”. This title… indicates the lofty
  position of Mary in the divine economy and in the historical course of
  salvation…

  Mary entered into the process of salvation through her faith… By her
  Fiat to the divine message Mary contributed to salvation, just as Eve
  had done to man’s ruin (Lumen Gentum, art. 56). This does not mean
  that God made his plan of salvation dependent on Mary’s consent but
  that according to the eternal plan of salvation man for his part was
  to assent to his salvation, through divine grace. Humanity’s Yes to
  God and to Christ the saviour is summed up in Mary. In her Fiat of
  faith, she received salvation for all...   Mary was the primary
  recipient of this salvation, which she took to herself in the most
  excellent way, not only for herself in individualistic isolation but
  with a willingness and an openness which were orientated to all men.
  Her personal appropriation of salvation has ecclesiastical
  significance. The salvation of Christ is concretely embodied in the
  sacrament of the Church, as Lumen Gentium affirms (art. 59). Salvation
  is present and accessible in the Church, and Mary is the first and
  most privileged member of the Church…

  Vatican II avoided speaking of her universal mediation of grace. But
  the truth behind such terms is taught with reserve, while the
  mediatorship of Christ is strongly stressed and all Mary s activity is
  seen exclusively in the perspective of Christ. If, nonetheless, the
  mediatorship of Mary is affirmed, this is in order to bring out a
  fundamental thought from the Bible, the solidarity of all men. Men do
  not receive salvation as individuals, or monads in isolation from each
  other, but as social beings. Each one who receives the gift of
  salvation becomes himself a source of salvation. The good of one is
  fertile in good things for the other. This general principle holds
  good for Mary in a special and comprehensive way. Hence Mary’s
  mediatorship is to be understood on the level of the solidarity of all
  mankind which is in need of redemption, to which she herself belongs,
  and not on that of the one and only saviour.

  In the light of the thesis that Mary's glorified existence is that of
  intercession, and that this is essential for her, the much discussed
  question of whether Mary's function is sacramental or petitionary
  seems to be given too much superficial prominence... The function of
  Mary in salvation determines her relation to the Church... Mary is
  mother of the Church under this more individualistic aspect, since she
  is effectively concerned for the salvation of each individual.” (pages
  898-901)

It is seen that arriving at the teaching of Mary’s role in salvation is dependent on many stepping stones being added over time to the doctrine of Mary. There is no mention of her being in any way involved in salvation in the early Church. Only at the beginning of the 3rd century did Hippolytus of Rome give her the title of Deipara (the bringer-forth of God). That was changed later to Theotokos (Mother of God), the Encyclopedia commenting that:

  “It was a term which brought out better than Deipara the fact that
  Mary’s function was not merely physiological but also spiritual and
  personal. It paved the way for the concept of Mary as the spiritual
  mother of all the faithful… As regards the perpetual virginity of Mary
  there was no fully general consensus before the Council of Ephesus.
  [431]” (p 896)

Whatever part Mary’s claimed perpetual virginity plays in any role of salvation, it could not have been significant if it was not settled by Catholic theologians until 431. It follows that if that, and any other stepping-stones along the path of Mary’s elevation to eventually being viewed as a co-Redemptrix in salvation is misplaced, there will be a need to ask more questions.


Was the Son eternally begotten? Was the Son begotten continuously or just once?

This question revolves around the begetting of the Son before the creation of the universe NOT his incarnation.

Was the Son begotten continuously forever?

Or

Was the Son begotten once forever?

One of the best (if not the best) Augustinian/Thomistic theologians is Frank J. Sheed.  His great work “Theology and Sanity” is an excellent guide for contemplating questions like these.

Sheed writes:

  What, then, is time?  Philosophers use the word in two closely related
  senses; most of us find that one of these is sufficient for us.  Time,
  say the philosophers, is the duration of that which changes; time, say
  the philosophers again and we with them, is the measurement of the
  changes of the universe. What is common to both statements is the
  relation of time to change.  Where nothing changes, time has no
  possible meaning. Thus time and the universe started together.  God is
  infinite and therefore changeless.  He is “the Father of lights with
  whom there is no change or shadow of alteration” (James 1:17).  He
  possesses the utter fullness of existence, so that nothing can go from
  Him, for He already possesses all.  The universe He created is a
  changing universe.  And because change belongs to it and not to God,
  time belongs to it and not to God. To repeat, time and the universe
  started together: time is the ticking of the universe.

If we say, “Jesus was begotten before the universe was created,” then we are stating something that has no meaning at all.  Before is a word of time, and there could be no time before the universe because time began with the universe.  To say “before the universe” means when there wasn't any “when”; which is to say that it doesn't mean anything at all.  The same is said about the phrase, “how many times was (was is also a time word) Jesus begotten.”

Frank Sheed goes on to discuss processions in eternity:

  There may still remain one error clinging to our knowledge of the
  processions of the Persons in the Blessed Trinity because of our own
  immersion in time.  As far as the statement of it goes, we are not
  likely to make the error of thinking that the Son is in some way less
  eternal than the Father, or the Holy Spirit in some way younger than
  the Father and the Son.  We know that there is no succession in
  eternity, no change in God.  God the Father did not first exist as a
  Person and then become a Father.  God, by the very act of being God,
  generates his Son; God the Father and God the Son, by the very act of
  being God, spirate the Holy Spirit.  As I say, there is not likely to
  be any error in our statement of this: the error will tend to cling to
  our idea in such a way that when we are looking directly at it, we do
  not see it, yet it is profoundly there: and, because time is so deeply
  woven into all our experience, our advance in the knowledge of God
  depends upon our deliberate effort to rid our mind of it.

According to the historical Church's creeds and councils, the only valid answer is, "Christ is eternally begotten only of the Father."

The Nicene Creed was formulated by the Early Church Fathers to authoritatively define the  Christological absolutes that orthodox Christians hold:

  I believe in one God, the Father almighty,
      maker of heaven and earth,
      of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
          the Only Begotten Son of God,
          born of the Father before all ages.
      God from God, Light from Light,
          true God from true God,
      begotten, not made, consubstantial
         with the Father;
          Through him all things were made.
      For us men and for our salvation
          he came down from heaven,
          and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate
          of the Virgin Mary,
          and became man.

According to this formula, Christ is "the only begotten Son of God."  While being eternally "begotten from the Father before all ages,"  he was "by the Power of the Holy Spirit incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man." It is precisely because Jesus of Nazareth was eternally begotten/born (fully God and fully Man) before all ages, that the Blessed Virgin Mary can properly receive the coronation of being named "Theotokos," or Mother of God.


Are there any commentaries from Trinitarians that explain why the Holy Spirit doesn't have a throne/receive worship in Revelation? For being a co-equal member of the Godhead, it would appear that the Holy Spirit is, for all intents and purposes, absent from the major points, events, and these visions held in Revelation.

For example, let's look at Revelation 5

  5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has triumphed to open the scroll and its seven seals.”

  6 Then I saw a Lamb who appeared to have been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which represent the sevenfold Spirit of God sent out into all the earth. 7 And He came and took the scroll from the right hand of the One seated on the throne.

  8 When He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp, and they held the golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9And they sang a new song:

  “Worthy are You to take the scroll and open its seals,
  because You were slain,
  and by Your blood You purchased for God
  those from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

  10 You have made them into a kingdom,
  priests to serve our God,
  and they will reign on the earth.”

The Lamb Exalted

  11 Then I looked, and I heard the voices of many angels and living creatures and elders encircling the throne, and their number was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands. 12 In a loud voice they said:

  “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain,
  to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength
  and honor and glory and blessing!”

  13 And I heard every creature in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying:

  “To Him who sits on the throne,
  and to the Lamb,
  be praise and honor and glory and power
  forever and ever.”

  14 And the four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

Also see Revelation 7:9-12

  After this I looked and saw a multitude too large to count, from every nation and tribe and people and tongue, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands. 10 And they cried out in a loud voice:

  “Salvation to our God,
  who sits on the throne,
  and to the Lamb!”

  11 And all the angels stood around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. And they fell facedown before the throne and worshiped God, 12 saying, “Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanks and honor and power and strength to our God forever and ever! Amen.”

Among others, those passages show the exaltation, worship, praise, honor, etc. all given to God and the Lamb. Not one mention of the Spirit having a throne, receiving dominion, etc. How can this be reconciled? Are there any Trinitarian commentaries available that seek to explain or offer up some sort of logical resolution as to why the Spirit, being co-equal and co-eternal, doesn't seem to be receiving the same reverence?

The visions in Revelation that you cited in support of your contention (“that the Holy Spirit is, for all intents and purposes, absent from the major points, events, and these visions held in Revelation…”)  seemed to ignore a critically relevant point in Revelation 5:6 about “the seven spirits of God” which are “the seven eyes of the Lamb", who is “the Lion of the tribe of Judah” – the glorified Jesus Christ at the centre of this one throne of God in heaven. This means that the Holy Spirit IS included in that particular scene of worship. Verse 6 is commented on by the Protestant and Trinitarian web-site below which details one possible interpretation of the phrase, ‘the seven spirits of God’:

  “The first is that the seven spirits of God are symbolic of the Holy
  Spirit. The Bible, and especially the book of Revelation, uses the
  number 7 to refer to perfection and completion. If that is the meaning
  of the “seven” in the "seven spirits," then it is not referring to
  seven different spirits of God, but rather the perfect and complete
  Holy Spirit.” https://www.gotquestions.org/seven-spirits-God.html

This would mean, then, that when the Lamb is receiving the worship of those surrounding the throne of God in heaven, the Holy Spirit is also being worshipped, as the seven eyes of the Lamb are part of his Being. There is no need for a separate throne for the Holy Spirit as he is 'within' the Lamb, Jesus, looking out from his eyes, as it were.

  Verses 13 to 14 state, “And every creature which is in heaven, and on
  the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all
  that are in them, heard I saying, ‘Blessing and honour and glory and
  power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for
  ever and ever’. And the four beasts said, ‘Amen.’ And the twenty-four
  elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.”

Not only is the Father being worshipped, but also the Son (the Lamb) whose seven eyes are the seven-fold Spirit of God. There is the triune Godhead being worshipped on this one heavenly throne.

Further to the matter of the Bible supporting the idea of worshipping the Holy Spirit equally as is the Father and the Son, here is another quote from the same Trinitarian web-site:

  “The question of whether we should worship the Holy Spirit is answered
  simply by determining whether the Spirit is God. If the Holy Spirit is
  God, then He can and should be worshiped. Scripture presents the Holy
  Spirit as not merely a “force” but as a Person. The Spirit is referred
  to in personal terms (John 15:26; 16:7–8, 13–14). He speaks (1 Timothy
  4:1), He loves (Romans 15:30), He chooses (Acts 13:2), He teaches
  (John 14:26), and He guides (Acts 16:7). He can be lied to (Acts
  5:3–4) and grieved (Ephesians 4:30). The Holy Spirit possesses the
  nature of deity—He shares the attributes of God. He is eternal
  (Hebrews 9:14). He is omnipresent (Psalm 139:7–10) and omniscient (1
  Corinthians 2:10–11). He was involved in the creation of the world
  (Genesis 1:2). The Holy Spirit enjoys intimate association with both
  the Father and the Son (Matthew 28:19; John 14:16 …Since the Holy
  Spirit is God, and God is “worthy of praise” (Psalm 18:3), then the
  Spirit is worthy of worship. Jesus, the Son of God, received worship
  (Matthew 28:9), so it stands to reason that the Spirit of God would
  also receive worship. Philippians 3:3 tells us that believers “worship
  by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus.” There is one God who
  eternally exists in three Persons. When we worship God, we naturally
  worship all three members of the Godhead.”
  https://www.gotquestions.org/worship-Holy-Spirit.html

I submit these two quotes in support of Protestant, Trinitarian belief in the Holy Spirit being worshipped in Heaven, particularly as depicted in the book of Revelation. The one throne in heaven is the 'seat' of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  It is worth noting, also, that Catholic views on the worship of the Holy Spirit would not clash with Protestant ones.


Does Platonism have a denomination/group/following within Christianity? I wish to follow Plato's belief of the forms and find other's who do so. Erm, question is, in Christianity is that actually a 'thing'? CS Lewis followed Plato. Peter Kreeft does...so Christians CAN but, well, how to know if you're among those who support it and can talk freely?

To clarify, the Platonist belief I am mostly interested in is the idea that everything has a heavenly archaetype that is more perfect than it, and that a bad thing made bad by being (to whatever degree) far away from its perfect, ideal form.

Saint Augustine, an African theologian who was one of the most significant post-Biblical Christian thinkers in the early church, was heavily influenced by Plato.  His descriptions of God the Father can be connected directly with Plato's Form of the Good, an immaterial, eternal, perfect entity that is the source of all good within the universe.

Given the shaping impact of this line of thought on the church, you might, in some sense, say that we are all Platonists.

With that said, I am not aware of any denomination or sect that specifically adapts the rest of Plato's theory of the Forms to Christian belief.


What would be the consequences for refusing confirmation in the Anglican Church? What would be the consequences for a teenage child of committed Australian Anglican parents who chose to refuse confirmation?

The confirmation may be refused either before the ceremony, i.e. refusing to attend, or during the ceremony.

I'm interested in what church doctrine would say as to how to deal with such a person.

Most(?) Anglican churches probably run confirmation classes. If anyone had solid reasons to not want to be confirmed those reasons would arise during the classes, so if they changed their mind right before the confirmation itself then that would be an impulsive decision, so I don't think there's much point looking for any regularities about that.

What about if you express your desire to not be confirmed earlier? Well Anglicanism is very diverse. Some churches will make a big deal out of confirmation, others less of one. Some churches will think of it as a rite that everyone goes through, others will not. Some will pressure the youth into doing it, others will wait for their youth to ask to be confirmed.

As someone who attends an evangelical Anglican church, I think it would actually be a good sign that someone did not want to be confirmed: it is very unhealthy for churches to confirm people who really have no true faith and confidence in God. To say "I shouldn't do this" is a good thing to say. Whether they are having doubts or are a firm atheist, it is much better to not be confirmed than to confirm people who aren't true Christians.

If someone is willing to talk through these issues with the leaders of their church there is unlikely to be any long term consequences. Many dioceses however will not let you do certain things in church services without being confirmed, but if you don't want to be confirmed it's unlikely your church leaders will want you to service lead etc anyway.


Why do Protestants not refer to Mary by the title "Mother of God"? I have heard the title "Mother of God" in connection with the "Hail Mary" prayer that(Ave Maria) is recited by Catholics.

However, I have never heard this term used in any Protestant setting.  (From the comment by Bobo, we find that the Orthodox also refer to Mary in this way; Theotokos in Greek literally means "Birth-giver of God", as well as Bohoroditza in Russian. Both of these terms are widely used in their respective Orthodox groups).

Why, then, do Protestants not use this title that appears to be so common in Catholicism?

At its most basic level, Protestants believe Mary merely to be the earthly mother of Jesus - not the eternal mother of "God."  To imply that she had a role in creating that which is divine with Him seems an overreach. This is not to say that Jesus is not God, but Mary's role is as a vehicle for the incarnation, not the means by which the Godhood was made.  To believe otherwise would unnecessarily elevate her above mere mortals.

This is not imply she is not "blessed among women," nor that she was not the vessel through which God incarnated and dwelt among us. But to stress the motherhood of that which is God within Jesus (and no, I do not mean to imply a Nestorian, no-hypostatic union Jesus - he is fully God and fully Man) - that motherhood denotes a role in creation, and that is not possible.

That "Creation" would fly in the face of John 1:2, of course - for Jesus was not created.  Jesus was incarnated, meaning that his existence and personhood indwelt man, but was not created "by the will of man or by the flesh."  Motherhood denotes a much greater role in the creation of the child[1] than incarnation would suggest.

Finally, Calvin suggests that Mary's role as mother was only earthly:

  Opponents of the aforementioned view of Calvin's mariology point out that, in his writings, Calvin never explicitly refers to Mary as the 'Mother of God'. Moreover, Calvin's comments on Mary as the mother of Elizabeth's Lord, may be understood to mean that, in Calvin's view, Mary was mother of the Lord only while he was on earth. Proponents of this view have cited Calvin's commentary on John 19:26, from which it has been argued that Calvin considered the mother-son relationship between Mary and Jesus to have ceased at Jesus’ death. In this scheme, Christ, as he was dying on the cross, appointed his disciple John to take his place as Mary's son, so that he himself might henceforth take his rightful place at the Father's right hand in heaven.

Once John was beheld as "your son," Mary was now the mother of John, not Jesus.

Notes

I was about to say "she does contribute genetic material for example," when I realized that there is nothing to suggest she didn't.  That said, genetics were an unknown science at the time of the incarnation, and as such it is anachronistic to require a knowledge thereof when these titles were being decided.  The point is that Mary did not make God in the same way a mother "makes" her baby.
To be fair, Luther did call her mother of God, but the formulation seems much Roman Catholic as anything.


What is the scriptural evidence that faith comes from God? I've heard both of these claims, and they seem to have irreconcilable differences:

God does his part (the call/invitation), now you do yours (respond in faith)
God not only gave his son for you, but he will give you the faith to believe it.

I'm less interested here in the broader question of the doctrine of election; I'm focusing specifically on the second bullet point: is there scriptural evidence that faith is a gift or something that we receive from God?

My position is that faith comes from God. Justification, the act whereby God pardons our sins and gives us the righteousness of Christ, is by grace through faith. There are a number of passages that illustrate this doctrine (ESV):

Jonah 2:9:

  But I with the voice of thanksgiving
      will sacrifice to you;
    what I have vowed I will pay.
      Salvation belongs to the Lord!

Ephesians 2:8-9:

  For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

1 John 4:19:

  We love because he first loved us.

Now this faith give to us by God is a living and active faith. It is no dead faith, but produces good works (obedience to the law). As James tells us, if the faith we have does not produce works, it is a dead faith.


What does the Bible say about a father walking his daughter down the aisle at her wedding? I believe this came about as a Jewish tradition. Why is this done and what does it symbolize?

Is a father walking his daughter down the aisle at her wedding a biblical tradition? What is the father's biblical role in the wedding specifically?

Does the father have a role in the wedding if this is the daughter's second marriage, after a biblical divorce in her first marriage?

The idea is not specifically mentioned in the Bible.  However, there is a biblical concept of "headship" that applies to every husband, which would seem to apply both to a woman's father prior to her marriage.

For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.  Ephesians 5:23 NASB

The root of this comes from Genesis 2, when God brought the woman to the man--and not the other way around.

The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.  Genesis 2:22 NASB

This is illustrated further in Genesis 3, where the woman sins first, but God's interrogation begins with Adam.

When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.   Genesis 3:6 NASB
Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 He said, “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.” 11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.” 13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”   Genesis 3:9-13 NASB

The idea of "headship" is certainly a controversial topic today.  However, it is likely the concept upon which the modern marriage ceremony is built.  The giving of the bride by the father to the husband symbolizes the transfer of responsibility.


Are spiritual pleasures > carnal pleasures, according to Catholicism? Does Catholicism consider spiritual pleasures greater than carnal/sexual/bodily pleasures?

Spiritual pleasures ⋙ carnal pleasures.
Yes, intellectual and especially spiritual pleasures are greater than carnal/sexual/bodily/sense pleasures, St. Thomas shows in Ia IIae, q.31, a.5. This explains what attracts the religious to leave the world by taking vows of poverty and chastity/celibacy.
Spiritual pleasures more enduring
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s Life Everlasting (pt. 1, §3 "Soul Immensity and Beatific Vision"):

Following St. Gregory the Great, St. Thomas writes: Temporal goods appear desirable when we do not have them; but when we do have them, we see their poverty, which cannot meet our desire and which therefore produces disillusion, lassitude, and often repugnance. In spiritual goods the inverse is true. They do not seem desirable to those who do not have them and who desire especially sensible good. But the more we possess them the more we know their value and the more we love them.⁴ For the same reason, material goods, the same house, the same field, cannot belong simultaneously and integrally to many persons. Spiritual goods, on the contrary, one and the same truth, one and the same virtue, can belong simultaneously and completely to all. And the more perfectly we possess these goods, the better we can communicate them to others.⁵ This is especially true of the sovereign good.

Ia IIae, q.31, a.5; q.32, a.2; q.33, a.2.
Ia IIae, q. 28, a.4 ad 2; IIIa, q. 23, a. 1 ad 3.

Only God can make us truly happy.
See also SCG III qq. 26-44, where he addresses questions like "That human felicity does not consist in pleasures of the flesh," "That ultimate felicity does not lie in the act of prudence," "That felicity does not consist in the operation of art," ending with (q. 37) "That the ultimate felicity of man consists in the contemplation of God." But he goes further, arguing "That human felicity does not consist in the knowledge of God gained through demonstration" and even that "Human felicity does not consist in the knowledge of God which is through faith"!


What is the Calvinist and Hyper-Calvinist understanding of the "whosoever will" from Rev. 22:17? And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that hears say, Come. And let him that is thirsty come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. (Rev. 22:17 KJV)

I've heard that Spurgeon had some issues with hyper-calvinists because he preached the "whosoever will, let him" so freely that his friends became upset with his approach on this question.

Here is a quote from one of his sermons, that I could find

  It simply says, "whosoever will," Art thou willing? Art thou willing to be saved? Canst thou say, "Now, Lord, I am willing to be saved, give me a new heart; I am willing to give up my sins; I am willing to be a Christian; I am willing to believe and willing to obey, but oh for this no strength have I, Lord, I have the will; give me the power." Then thou art freely invited to come, if thou art but willing. (C.H. Spurgeon - October 16th, 1859)

I understand that avarage hyper-calvinists would trully disagree with this words.

Now, what is an overview of reformed, especially (but not only) hyper-calvinists, published commentaries on the meaning of this whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely, since they don't believe in a free will at all and, in the case of hyper-calvinists, that the calling is not to everyone, but to the elect?

A good answer will focus on this issue:

Is the calling to drink the water of life extended to everyone, or is limited to the elect?

Disclaimer:

by Hyper-calvinist, we can assume the wikipedia article as a  definition, as it says that "Their system denies that the call of the gospel to "repent and believe" is directed to every single person and that it is the duty of every person to trust in Christ for salvation." and "as a view that maintains the theory of limited atonement and limits the scope of gospel invitations to the elect."

The term "hyper-Calvinist" is a moving target, due to its pejorative nature, but several historical theologians are widely considered to fall under that label.  I'll examine the views of two of them before moving to the position held by "traditional" Calvinists/reformed theologians.  Both groups see God working to change the will of the sinner, making him desire repentance and salvation.  But their understandings of who God calls to repentance differ.
"Hyper"-Calvinists
Two men commonly considered hyper-Calvinists were John Brine and John Gill.  They lived a century before Spurgeon, but they would have influenced Spurgeon's opponents.  John Brine in particular objects to interpreting the call of Revelation 22:17 universally:

The Offer of Christ [...] is not made to Men, as Men, or to Sinners, merely as Sinners; but it is made to them as convinced, thirsting, hungring Sinners after Christ, and his Righteousness, and his Salvation.
The Elect [...] are the only Persons to whom [Christ] is held forth in the Gospel for Acceptance: Because they only have Desires after him.

Brine's concern is that if the offer of Christ is made to all men, it would impugn the sincerity of God:

If it be said, that such is the Will and Design of God, then it must be allowed, that he is disappointed of his Purpose in making this Proposal, with respect to the far greater Number of those to whom the Offer is made: Which seems to me evidently inconsistent with the Perfections of God. (source)

John Gill's analysis of the verse is similar:

the persons encouraged to partake of it are "whosoever will"; that is, whoever has a will to divine and spiritual things, wrought in him by God, for no man has such a will of himself (source)

Gill thus limits the invitation to those who have the will to do so, as given by God.
"Traditional" Calvinists
Among those commonly considered "traditional" Calvinists (i.e., not "hyper"), it is widely agreed that there is a "universal call," that is, the Gospel invitation is to be presented to everyone, not merely to those who will respond to it.  However, some, like John MacArthur, still see Revelation 22's "whosoever will" as referring to those who have the God-given desire to come:

Whoever wants to, whoever desires to, whoever wishes to. You're thirsty and you wish to have your need met. That, by the way, is an unlimited invitation. Typical of the gracious and wide offer of salvation that you see in Scripture. It is essentially what Jesus said in John 6:37 where He said, "All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." If you're thirsty it's because the Father has begun to move on your heart and you've recognized your need. And if you come because you want to take the water, it's because you've been prompted to come and there's no way the Lord would ever turn you back. So whoever wants to come, He receives. (source)

Others, like Albert Barnes, suggest that the invitation of this passage is truly to "all," even those who do not wish to be saved:

Every one that is disposed to come, that has any sincere wish to be saved, is assured that he may live. No matter how unworthy he is; no matter what his past life has been [...] the invitation is freely made to all to come and be saved. (source)

Charles Hodge cites this passage in his more general argument regarding the extent of the invitation:

The Scriptures, therefore, in the most explicit terms teach that the external call of the gospel is addressed to all men. [...] We are commanded to make the offer of salvation through Jesus to every human being on the face of the earth.

But what about Brine's objection?  Hodge emphasizes the Scriptural evidence pointing to a universal call, and recognizes the incapacity of man to understand God's purposes.  He then responds:

What God’s purposes may be in instituting and promulgating this scheme of mercy, has nothing to do with our duty as ministers in making the proclamation, or with our obligation and privilege as sinners in accepting his proffered grace. If it is not inconsistent with the sincerity of God to command all men to love Him, it is not inconsistent with his sincerity to command them to repent and believe the gospel. (source)

In other words, we may not understand why God invites all but saves only some, but Scripture and experience prove this to be true. And if it is legitimate for God to command all to obey him, but not make them all obedient, then it is certainly legitimate for God to command all to repent but not make them repent.


For people who believe in Jesus and not the devil, what happened in the desert? Some Christians believe in God and Jesus, but not the devil.

If so, what is their explanation of the temptation of Christ in the desert?

For people who believe in Jesus and not the devil, what happend in the desert?

There are Christians who believe in Jesus, but not in a personal Devil. For example: the Christadelphians.

  Devil

  Christadelphians believe that the Satan or Devil is not an independent spiritual being or fallen angel. Devil is viewed as the general principle of evil and inclination to sin which resides in humankind. They are convinced that, dependent on the context, the term Satan in Hebrew merely means "opponent" or "adversary" and is frequently applied to human beings. Accordingly, they do not define Hell as a place of eternal torment for sinners, but as a State of Eternal Death respectively non-existence due to annihilation of body and mind. - Christadelphian (Wikipedia)

They tend not to take the Scriptures “literally”. This includes the temptations of Christ in the desert.

  The temptations evidently cannot be taken literally:

  Matthew 4:8 implies that Jesus was led up into a high mountain to see all the kingdoms of the world in their future glory "in a moment of time" (Mk.4:5). There is no mountain high enough to see all the world. And why would the height of the mountain enable Jesus to see what the world would be like in the future? The earth being a sphere, there is no point on its surface from which one can see all the parts of the world at any one time.

  A comparison of Matt. 4 and Luke 4 shows that the temptations are described in a different order. Mark 1:13 says that Jesus was "in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan", whilst Matt. 4:2-3 says that "when he had fasted forty days...the tempter (Satan) came to Him...". Because Scripture cannot contradict itself, we can conclude that these same temptations kept repeating themselves. The temptation to turn stones into bread is an obvious example. This would fit nicely if these temptations occurred within the mind of Jesus. Being of our nature, the lack of food would have affected him mentally as well as physically, and thus his mind would have easily begun to imagine things. Just going a few days without food can lead to delirium for some (cp. 1 Sam.30:12). The similarity between rolls of bread and stones is mentioned by Jesus in Mt.7:9, and doubtless those images often merged in his tortured mind - although always to be brought under swift control by his recollection of the Word.

  Jesus probably told the Gospel writers the record of his temptations, and to bring home in words the intensity of what he underwent, he could have used the figurative approach seen in Matt. 4 and Luke 4.

  It seems unlikely that the devil led Jesus through the wilderness and streets of Jerusalem and then they scaled a pinnacle of the temple together, all in view of the inquisitive Jews. Josephus makes no record of anything like this happening - presumably it would have caused a major stir. Similarly, if these temptations occurred several times within the forty days as well as at the end of that period (which they did at least twice, seeing that Matthew and Luke have them in different order), how would Jesus have had time to walk (n.b. the devil "led" Jesus there) to the nearest high mountain (which would have been Hermon in the far north of Israel), climb to the top and back down again, return to the wilderness and then repeat the exercise? His temptations all occurred in the wilderness - he was there for forty days, tempted all the time by the devil (who only departed at the end - Matt. 4:11). If Jesus was tempted by the devil each day, and the temptations occurred only in the wilderness, then it follows that Jesus could not have left the wilderness to go to Jerusalem or travel to a high mountain. These things therefore could not have happened literally.

  If the devil is a physical person who has no respect for God's Word and is interested in making people sin, then why would Jesus quote Scripture to him to overcome him? According to the popular view, this would not send the devil away. Notice that Jesus quoted a Bible passage each time. If the devil was the evil desires within Jesus' heart, then it is understandable that by his having the Word in his heart and reminding himself of it, he could overcome those bad desires. Psalm 119:11 is so relevant that perhaps it is specifically prophesying Christ's experiences in the wilderness: "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against Thee".

  Matt. 4:1 says that Jesus was "led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil." This was the Spirit of God which had just been bestowed upon him (ch. 3:16). It would be an extraordinary thing for the Spirit of God to lead Jesus into the wilderness so that he cftould be tempted by a superhuman being existing in opposition to God. - Digression 20: The Temptations Of Jesus

Many Christians who deny the Devil will follow similar lines: Scriptures are not to be always taken literally.


Why did Jesus weep when Lazarus's friends agreed to show him his body? After Lazarus died, Jesus led his disciples to visit Lazarus's sisters, Mary & Martha. When the friends of Lazarus agreed to show Jesus the cave where Lazarus's body was laid, Jesus wept.

Is there consensus among theologicians on the why Jesus wept there?

Jesus felt compassion for the friends of Lazarus.

  John 11:4 (NASB)
  But when Jesus heard this, He said, “This sickness is not to end in death, but for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by it.”

Jesus deliberately waited two extra days after Lazarus’s sisters sent for him.
Why? Presumably because he knew what that he was going to raise Lazarus from the dead. So why did he weep?

Sometimes, when my children are crying because they're in pain, I know in my mind that they're not hurt very badly. That doesn't completely take away the compassionate pain I feel for them. I love them, and (some of) their pain becomes my pain. When they are hurt badly, my pain increases all the more, even if I'm confident that they will get better.

  John 11:33-35 (NASB)
  When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, He was deeply moved in spirit and was troubled, and said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to Him, “Lord, come and see.” Jesus wept.

It make more sense to understand this as saying that he felt compassion for these people, even friends of his, who were very sad about the death of Lazarus.


Has a notable militant non-Christian ever converted to Christianity due to a "Road to Damascus" experience? I would like to know if there are published testimonies of notable militant non-Christians -- which could be a militant atheist or any non-Christian person who has actively waged war against the Christian faith -- who ended up making an unexpected 180 degree turn to Christianity due to an extraordinary, "Road to Damascus" kind of experience. We know that extraordinary experiences like that have the potential to turn Sauls into Pauls, persecutors into warriors of the faith. Has this ever happened to a notable militant non-Christian? Or at least has a former militant non-Christian ever testified about an extraordinary experience being the cause of their conversion?
Of course the apostle Paul, whom I'm using as a reference, does not count. More recent cases are preferable.

I don’t know if anyone would describe Paul Jones (lead singer with U.K. band Manfred Mann 1962-1966) as a notable militant atheist, but he was asked to represent the atheist side in a televised debate against Cliff Richard, a well-known U.K. Christian pop star.

"Basically, I argued against Christianity. I mean I was a rabid atheist at the time. I'd got very angry with Christians because of one Christian who behaved badly when I was about 15. It seems absolutely absurd now, I mean it wasn't even anything particularly serious. Although everything's serious when you're 15, isn't it? Anyway, I just thought if that's a Christian, I'm never going to be one. It was my hobby to argue with Christians and I thought what fun to argue with Cliff Richard and on television as well. So I just went for it. I think I was a bit of a Rottweiler that day. Cliff's response to the whole thing was to pray for me."

Paul and his girlfriend Fiona began to explore Christianity.  Paul’s former debate opponent, Cliff Richards, invited them along with a large group of other show-business celebrities to see evangelist Luis Palau.  It was at this show that the two of them decided to give their lives to Christ, and also to marry one another.  After his conversion, Paul changed many of his life-habits that he felt were contrary to his new position as a Christian.
Rather than having a “Road to Damascus” experience, this was more of a gradual awakening.  As Paul himself admitted,

"God is amazing - he deals with you where you are. He met me at my level. I started talking to myself about spiritual things."
Source: https://thementionables.org/conversion/2020/6/22/paul-jones-media-superstar-and-militant-atheist-converts-to-christianity

This article lists some interesting people who were converted to Christianity from non-theism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Christianity_from_nontheism#Converted_to_Protestantism
A few notables are:

Francis Collins – physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes; director of the National Human Genome Research Institute; former atheist

Jonny Lang – blues and rock singer who professed to once "hating" Christianity, before later claiming to have a supernatural encounter with Jesus Christ which led to his conversion

Lee Strobel – former avowed atheist and journalist for the Chicago Tribune; was converted by his own journalistic research intended to test the veracity of scriptural claims concerning Jesus; author of such apologetic books as The Case for Faith and The Case for Christ

David Wood – Christian Apologist and critic of Islam who was brought up as an atheist

You might find what you are looking for amongst the examples from that Wikipedia list.


What is the basis for the argument that Jesus DID have the ability to give in to temptation? I understand that some people believe that Jesus actually had the capacity to sin, that is, to give in to the temptations that He suffered.  This seems to suggest that God has the power to sin.

In a sense, then, the redemption of mankind hung in the balance, so to speak, during the temptations of Christ.

What are the theological arguments in support of this position?

The argument comes both from the fact that Jesus was fully human, and from the Hebrews 4:15, which says (in the King James)

  For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the
  feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we
  are, yet without sin.

This outlines the fact that even though Jesus is fully God, He was also fully human.  He felt all our infirmities and weaknesses, and yet, as God overcame them.

A complete theological statement would be "because Jesus was fully Human, He had the capacity to sin, but because of His perfect nature, also being fully God and therefore perfectly good, He could not sin."

Both are true, but people have a hard time wrapping their head around that, choose half the truth, and fall into error.


Does Catholicism have a stance on horoscopes? Does the Roman Catholic Church have a stance on the use of horoscopes (such as for the twelve astrological signs, e.g. Gemini, Virgo, Scorpio)? Specifically, I'd like to know if the Church has taken a stance on:

Believing that horoscopes can predict one's future
Reading horoscopes for fun, but not taking them seriously

Given that horoscopes have traditionally been used for divination, I am curious if that means that faithful Catholics shouldn't use them, since only God knows the future. Also, has any modern stance been taken for the less serious horoscopes in today's daily newspapers?

The current Catechism has a "more modern take on the matter" which actually uses the word horoscope.

2116 All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future.⁴⁸ Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honour, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.
⁴⁸ Cf Deut 18:10, Jer 29:8

This paragraph appears in the section on the Commandments headed "You shall have no other gods before me". Constructing and consulting horoscopes indicates a belief that it's possible to divine the mind of God and predict his plans, which puts Man on a par with God.
I don't believe that astrology works and any belief that we can divine the mind of God is forlorn. However, disobeying God in "making ourselves gods" is what caused the Fall. God is God and it's not for Man to be.


When is "Thanks Be to God" said in the mass? When do we say "Thanks be to God" in the mass, is it in the Liturgy of the Word? Also when do we say "Praise to You Lord Jesus Christ" in the mass, is it after the Gospel?

Since you only mention the mass and not a denomination, I'll assume you mean in the Catholic Church. However, the same will apply for most liturgical traditions

After each of the first (often Old Testament) and second ( New Testament)  lessons, the reader will say

  The word of the Lord

to which the people respond

  Thanks be to God.

The Gospel reading is announced by

  A reading from the holy Gospel according to N.

The people respond

  Glory to you, Lord.

After the Gospel reading, the reader says

  The Gospel of the Lord.

The people respond

  Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ

At the end of the mass, the people are dismissed with (or something similar)

  Go forth, the Mass is ended

And again the people respond

  Thanks be to God


What is the purpose of church discipline? What is the end goal or purpose of church discipline and how is this defined in Scripture? What is the relation (if any) between church discipline and God's discipline?

Lets keep the implementation details for another question and stick to just the why for now.

This answer reflects my personal opinion, or rather results from my personal studies.

I can see two main purposes.

Salvation of the sinner

The first purpose is to help the person that is being disciplined. This is apparent from Paul's writing to the Corinthians:

  1 Cor 5:4-5 (ESV)

  4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus,
  5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

It's difficult to say what this exactly means, but clearly the goal is that his spirit may be saved. In general, there can be multiple different ways that discipline helps a person turn from the road to destruction.

Purity of the church

Christ wants His bride pure.

  Col 1:21-22 (ESV)

  21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him

Continuing from the earlier passage, Paul writes:

  1 Cor 5:6-8 (ESV)

  6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Little leaven leavens the whole lump. Similarly, one person living in sin lures others in the community to live in sin, making the whole community impure.

As for the relation between the two, church discipline should always be part of God's discipline. It should always happen in the guidance of God and according to principles set in the bible (implementation details). Anything other would be spiritual violence. God thankfully has a lot of other means to discipline His children, so church discipline is just one detail of a big picture.


What is the Catholic definition of divinity? There's a question about the LDS definition of Divinity and I'm reading from Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians that their definition of divinity doesn't necessarily imply the person who is divine is also God, only godly.  I don't see a definition in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia on New Advent.  I have seen old writings referring to some saints, the Blessed Virgin Mary as divine, and I understand the phrase "to share in divinity", etc... referring to life in the Beatific Vision. But in concrete theological (non-flowery) terms, are only the three Persons of the Trinity appropriate to refer to as divine, according to the Catholic Church?

What is the Catholic definition of divinity?
Catholic Culture puts it in a nutshell!

Divinity
Definition
The attribute of being divine. In an absolute sense only the infinite God is divine. but the term is sometimes loosely applied to others than God, either mistakenly or because of some relationship they have to God. (Etym. Latin divinus, belonging to God.)

Knowing me that is just too short, so I will expound this a little more.

Divine Attributes
Our natural knowledge of God is acquired by discursive reasoning upon the data of sense by introspection, "For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; His eternal power also, and Divinity" (St. Paul, Romans 1:20). Created things, by the properties and activities of their natures, manifest, as in a glass, darkly, the powers and perfections of the creator. But these refracted images of Him in finite things cannot furnish grounds for any adequate idea of the Infinite Being. Hence, in constructing a synthetic idea of God, before one can apply to the Divinity any concept or term expressing a perfection found in created being, it must be subjected to rigorous correction. The profound disparity between the Divine perfection and the intimations of it presented in the world-copy may be broadly laid down under two heads:

Number: The perfections of creatures are innumerable, the Divine Perfection is one.

Diversity: Created perfections differ endlessly in kind and degree; the Divine perfection is uniform, simple. It is not a totality of various perfections; absolutely simple, the Divine perfection answers to every idea of actual or conceivable perfection, without being determined to the particular mode of any. Hence, when any attribute expressing modes characteristic of the world of being that falls within the range of our experience is applied to God its signification ceases to be identical with that which it has in every other case. Yet it retains a real meaning in virtue of the ratio which exists between the finite being and its Infinite analogue. In philosophical phrase, the use of terms is called analogical predication, in contra-distinction to univocal, in which a word is predicated of two or more subjects in precisely the same sense.

Essence and attributes
Transcendentally one, absolutely free from composition, the Divine Being is not, and may not be conceived as, a fundamental substrate in which qualities or any other modal indeterminations inhere. The reality to the various attributes are ascribed is one and indivisible.
"Quae justitia," says St. Augustine, "ipsa bonitas; quae bonitas, ipsa beatitudo."
In this respect, the relation of the attributes to the Divine nature might be illustrated by the various reflections of one and the same object from a concave, a convex, and a plane mirror. Nevertheless, to systematize the idea of God, and to draw out the rich content of the knowledge resulting from the proofs of God's existence, some primary attribute may be chosen as representing one aspect of the Divine perfection from which the others may be rigorously deduced. Then arises a logical scheme in which the derivative attributes, or perfections stand towards one another in a relation somewhat similar to that of the essence and the various properties and qualities in a material substance. In this arrangement the primary perfection is termed the metaphysical essence, the others are called attributes. The essence, too, may be regarded as that characteristic which, above all others, distinguishes the Deity from everything else. Upon the question, which attribute is to be considered primary, opinions differ. Many eminent theologians favour the conception of pure actuality (Actus Purus), from which simplicity and infinity are directly deduced. Most modern authors fix on aseity (Aseitas; a = "from" se = "himself"), or self-existence; for the reason that, while all other existences are derived from, and depend on, God, He possesses in Himself, absolutely and independently, the entire reason of His uncaused infinite Being. In this, the most profound and comprehensive distinction between the Divinity and everything else, all other distinctions are implicitly expressed. Whether, and in what way, the distinctions between the attributes and the metaphysical essence, and among the attributes themselves have an ontological basis in the Divine nature itself was subject which divided Nominalists and Realists, Thomists and Scotists, in the age of Scholasticism (cf. Vacant, Dict. de théol. cathol., I, 2230-34).
Division of attributes
Taking as the basis of classification the ways by which the attributes are developed, they are divided into positive and negative. Among the negative attributes are simplicity, infinity, immutability. The chief positive attributes are unity, truth, goodness, beauty, omnipotence omnipresence, intellect and will, personality. Some authors divide them into incommunicable and communicable. The former class comprises those which belong to God alone (e.g., all-wise, self-existent, omnipotent) to the latter belong those which are predicable, analogically, of God and creatures as good, just, intelligent. Again, the divine nature considered either as static or as the source activity; hence another division into quiescent and active. Finally, some perfections involve a relation to things distinct from God, while others do not; and from this standpoint theologians divide the attributes into absolute and relative. The various classifications adopted by modern Protestant theologians are due partly to the results of philosophical speculation and partly to new conceptions of the nature of religion. Schleiermacher, e.g., derives the attributes of God from our threefold consciousness of absolute dependence, of sin, and of grace. Others, with Lipsius, distinguish the metaphysical attributes from the psychological and the ethical. A simpler division groups omnipotence, omnipresence, eternity, omniscience, and unity as the metaphysical predicates, justice and goodness as the moral attributes. The fundamental attribute is, according to Ritschl, love; according to Professor Royce, omniscience. The main difficulty with these writers centres about the idea of God as a personal being. - Divine Attributes

St. John The Evangelist, who is styled in the gospel, “The beloved disciple of Christ," and is called by the Greeks "The Divine.” This accolade and that of The Theologian have been given to St. John because of his lofty teachings concerning the Son of God, God the Word. In reality St. John is not Divine, but wrote about things Divine!
It was customary in the Middle Ages to designate the more celebrated among the saints by certain epithets or surnames which were supposed to express their characteristic excellence or dignity. This was especially the case with the doctors in law and theology.


Can a Jehovah's Witness say that they know they have eternal life? John's Gospel is written so that the reader may believe that Jesus is the Son of God and may have life in that name"

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which
are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by
believing you may have life in his name. - John 20:30-31

The purpose statement of John's 1st epistle is that the believer (that Jesus is the Son of God) may know that they have eternal life:

Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son.
And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life. - 1 John 5:10-13

I have read some material indicating that JW may be certain that they have been "anointed" but that this anointing amounts to the equivalent of an invitation.  In order to make use of the invitation faithful living must be undertaken:

Does the Christian who receives this token have a guaranteed future in heaven? No. That person is sure of his invitation. But whether he finally receives his reward in heaven or not depends on his proving faithful to his calling. - Watchtower Study Edition Jan. 2016 (section 7)

The article goes on to explain that the "anointing" is, in fact, the gift of the holy spirit and that it is a deposit:

This special operation of holy spirit becomes like a down payment, a guarantee (or, a pledge) of what is to come. An anointed Christian gains an inner  conviction because of this token that he or she has received. - Ephesians 1:13-14

It appears though that this inner conviction, gained by the reception of this down payment, is still not enough to be assured of a place in heaven.  In other words, a Jehovah's Witness can know that they have been anointed by the holy spirit and still not know that they have secured a spot in heaven.  Does this mean that an "anointed" can at least know that they have secured a place of eternal life on earth?
How do Jehovah's Witnesses understand the complimentary purpose statements of John's Gospel and his first letter regarding belief in the name of God's Son and knowing eternal life is possessed?
Can a Jehovah's Witness ever know that they have eternal life as John intended?

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe ‘Once Saved Always Saved’ is taught in the Bible.
Instead powerful promises like the words in John assure us that God will surely reward those who endure to the end. He will never fickly renege on his promise when a faithful anointed one endures to their death.
So John’s words that those who believe can know they have eternal life should be juxtaposed with those who do not believe. It is only those who believe that will be saved but belief is the first step in our walk with God. The Christian must continue that walk until the end to gain the reward.
Most of your question focuses on an anointed Christian brother or sister. As your question makes clear the individual who is spirit anointed has been given a token as it were, a special operation of the Holy Spirit, that serves as a pledge or guarantee  of what is to come.

After you believed, you were sealed by means of him with the promised holy spirit, which is a token in advance of our inheritance.” (Eph. 1:13, 14)

Paragraph 7 of the Watchtower  you cite asks:
Does the individual who is thus anointed have a guaranteed future in heaven?
The answer is no. While sure of their invitation, whether they finally receive their reward in heaven will depend on their proving faithful to this calling.

Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and choosing sure for yourselves, for if you keep on doing these things, you will by no means ever fail. In fact, in this way you will be richly granted entrance into the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” (2 Pet. 1:10, 11)

An anointed Christian must continue to remain faithful. Otherwise his heavenly calling, or invitation, will be of no value to him. — Heb. 3:1; Rev. 2:10.
As with all promises from Jehovah we don’t have to worry about Him holding up His end of the deal. We do have to concern ourselves with maintaining our standing with Him in such a way that we don’t void the guarantee.
If an anointed person turns aside from a faithful course they  don’t then qualify for a “runner up”reward of earthly eternal life.
It’s not as if a Christian  with a heavenly calling has to hit a longer tee shot than a fellow Christian with an earthly hope.
Both are called upon to maintain a course of integrity during their lives.
None of us can claim that eternal life is ours, only that we believe it is promised to us if we are faithful to the end.
Consider the words found in Philippians 3:12-16.  (ESV)

12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13 Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. 16 Only let us hold true to what we have attained.

Additional info is found in this article.


How do those who hold doctrines that God is omnipotent and omniscient answer what 1 Corinthians 1:25 implies? 1 Corinthians 1:25 reads:

  1 Corinthians 1  (NIV)
  25  For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

If Paul believed that God was omniscient and omnipotent I find his word choices quite odd. How can an omniscient God have any foolishness? Would not all His thoughts and actions be equally founded in Wisdom of the highest level? Likewise, how can an omnipotent God have any weakness? Would not all His abilities carry the same weight of the Almighty God?

So for those that hold the doctrines that God is omnipotent and omniscient how do they explain what this verse implies?

Looking at the context, one can see that the weakness and foolishness are seemingly so from a perspective of Jews (for whom the weakness of the cross is a stumbling block--this seems to be implied in the mocking presented by the chief priests, elders, and teachers of the law in Matthew 27:41-43, that God would express his power by physically saving his servant) or Greeks (for whom the cross seems foolish).

  For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified; a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:21-24, NIV)

This can be further seen by how Paul goes on to explain that God chose the weak and foolish things in the world to shame the strong and the wise of this world.

The comparison is between the weakest and most foolish seeming thing--the Messiah crucified (which even Peter, after years of being a student of the Messiah, rejected as weak and foolish)--is greater than any worldly (or even diabolical) strength or wisdom.


Received the truth in the love of it This (famous) quote from Margaret Fell includes,

  ... and I did as the apostle saith, I ‘received the truth in the love of it’.

Does "the apostle" there imply that's a quote from the New Testament?

I tried Google -- receive "the truth in the love of it" -- and with that I only saw the phrase being used in sermons and commentaries (including John Locke).

The first few search results seem to be contemporary with Margaret Fell's quote, i.e. 17th century.

Is a phrase like that in an edition of the Bible?
Otherwise I wonder what she's quoting (apparently quoting rather than paraphrasing)?
Or is it a contemporary paraphrase of a biblical reference?

It is probably a reference to 2 Thessalonians 2:10

...which includes:

  they received not the love of the truth

...the implication being that the speaker of "received the truth in the love of it" has acquired something that the subject of 2 Thessalonians 2:10 did not because they lacked a "love of it" (i.e. no "love of the truth").

That says nothing to where the original specific quote comes from, but this is the most likely allusion.